LUJailit,! Uii t'i;iSU-iiJiDJ5, 



[ SMITHSOKI =-I'iy DEPOSIT. "] 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 1 



! -^v -ii •^^'%>'% *:><%>'J6^'1Es 




ELEGANT JUVENILE BOOKS, 



1 iitU €xssB-%tMttB, 



By Caroline Chesebro'. 16mo. muslin. Price 75 cents. 



THE STRINO OF PEARLS, 

For Boys cund Owls. 
By T. S. Arthur. 16mo. muslin. Price 75 cents. 



^TOKDg© ^©©[UJT /SiKflDD^/Siy 

With Pictwres to Match, 
By F. C. "WooDWORTH. 16mo. mnslin. Price 75 cents. 



$T' 



50[s© /^©©(uiir mmmi 

'With Pictures to Match. 
By F. C. WooDWORTH. 16mo. muslin. Price 75 cents. 



Published by Derby <fe Millek, Auburn, N". Y. 

Derby, Orton h Mulligan, Buifalo, 



THRILLING TEMPERANCE TALE. 



girli ISilsou, 



THE R U M S E L L K II ' S VICTIM: 

Or, Humanity pleading for the Maine Law. 

BY EEY. J. K. COKNYN. 

A Temperance Story, founded on fact — IntroducUon hy Thurlo\o W. 
Brown, editor of the " Cayuga Chief. ^"^ 

12mo. rauslin. Price $1,25. 



"It is foundea on fact, ana is well adapted, by the Impressive scenes wliicu 
it describea, to aron^c tli6 attention of the reader to the mischiefs of the li- 
quor traffic. We trust tnisj volume will find a wide circulation. It oc^bw 
fail to exert a salutary influence," — N. Y. Tribune. 

"A powerful appeal in belialf of the Maine Law. The story is terribly 
true to life." — JV. Y. Independent. 

"It is a temperance tale, containing some striking scenes, and aiming, oy 
sturdy blows, to overthrow a great existing evil, by exposing it in its defor- 
mity, and suggesting the remedy." — Temperance Journal. 

"Written in a passionate, glowing style, as if the author were in earnest, 
and had seen the thing he describes. The friends of the Maine Law will find 
this book a strong pleader." — N. Y. Ohserver. 

"The author of this work has done good service to the cause by a series 
of spirit-stirring sketches, founded on fact" — N. Y. Evangelist. 

"The story is well conceived, and finely narrated. While it will enter- 
tain those who like to peruse the description of stirring scenes, it will at the 
same time, if they have any hearts, fill them with utter enmity against the 
* fire-water,' whicli steals away men's property, character and happiness. 
The work is very popular." — Christian Ambassador. 

" The autlior of this work has done good service to the cause, by a series 
of spirit-stirring sketches, founded on fact." — KortJiern Christian Advocate. 

Published by Derby tfe Miller, Auburn, N. Y. 

Derby, Orion <fe Mulligan, Buflfalo, 



FANNY FEUN'S NEW BOOI. 



FROM 

One elegant 12mo volume. 
JTith JEig-ht Illustrations. 400 Pag-es. Price $1,25. 



She has a mine of fun, tenderness, and truth somewhere, and though tho 
jewels she polishes for the world are not large, they are of the purest water 
and bright. — Eliza CooTc's Journal, {England.) 

Sweet, womanly, and surcharged with a tender pathos, we predict that her 
"Leaves" will become favorites. — Iff. Y. Tribwae. 

There is not a hearth that will not commune with her — there is not a heart 
that will not echo back the breathings of her nature. — Buffalo B&puhlic, 

They relate to almost everything of feeling, duty, foible, and things of 
beauty, and leave a moral impress. — 27'. Y. Evangelist. 

So true to life, they can hardly be called fictions. — Literary Ad/certiser, 

Winning upon the affections as a tender, thoughtful, and pathetic mor- 
alist. — ArtJiur's Rome Gazette. 

The product of an inventive and beautiful inind, and a pure, gentle an4 
loving spirit. — Albany Argus. 

There are pictures of love, of beauty, and of suffering here, equal to the 
best sketches of Dickens. — N'. Y. Mirror. 

We do not believe the author exists, who can equal her sketches. — Ca/na- 
da Christian Advocate. 

As her " Leaves " wear a healthy hue, it matters not how widely they 
float upon the breeze of popularity. — N&w- York Recorder. 

They are the genuine offspring of an original mind, the characteristic 
product of New England. — Home Journal. 



SECOND SERIES. 

SECOND SERIES— uniform with the First— (in January, 1854.) 

Published by Derby & Miller, Auburn, IST. Y. 

Derby, Orton, & Mulligan, Buffalo* 



NEW AND POPULAR BIOGRAPHY. 



THE LIFE 

OP 



BY D. W. BARTLETT. 

One vol. 16m()., muslin. Price $1,00. 



" His work is done carefully. His style is clear and graceful, and his sym- 
pathies are always engaged by the best aspects of whatever he takes in hand."* 
— Boston Daily Cornmomcealth. 

" A volume which will be eagerly sought. * * The reader has in one 
vol., one of the most interesting j^ortions of English history." — Cayuga Oh^f. 

" A judicious biography of one of the most charming heroines of histo- 
ry."— 3\ Y. Daily Times. 

"A charming book. We have read it ^vith the most thrilling interest." — 
ReligioiLS Herald. 

"Mr. Bartlett always writes well, and he sustains his high reputation in 
this work, which is well set off by the publishers." — Boston Olive Branch, 

"A very readable book." — Hartford C our ant. 

"We could wish that this volume might find a place in every young la- 
dy's library, to the displacement of some of the pernicious novels of tho day.'* 
— Albany Courier. 

**Very well written, and certainly worthy of becoming widely known." — 
Arthur's Home Gazette. 

" His chapters and sentences are symmetrically constructed, while his 
ready perception appropriates all the points of interest in liis subject, and re- 
jects that which is irrelevant or not authentic. — Hartford Times. 

"An easy, graceful writer — he seldom fails to add interest to the sub- 
j'^ct on which he writes. — ChriMian Secretary. 

Published by Derby & Miller, Auburn, K Y. 

Ddrby, Orton <fe Mulligan, Buffalo. 



CANDID DISCUSSION 



OF 



CHEISTIAN BAPTISM. 



BT 



DANIEL CLARK, Jr., 

FASTOR OP THB PEKSBYTERIAN CHURCH IN FREDONIA, K. Y. 




AUBURIS^: 
DERBY & MILLER 

BUFFALO : 

DERBY, ORTON & MULLIGAN. 

1854. 



Ji^gl 



/^ r 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year one thousand eight hun- 
dred and fifty -three, hy 
D^N I E L_C LA RK^_j;^R . , 
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Northern District of 
New- York. 



STEREOTYPED BY 

DEE BY AND MILLER, 

AUBUBN. 



PREFACE. 



Thic following treatise is diesigned, not to enlighten 
ministers, but to instruct the common people. Espedat 
ly is it intended for the benefit of recent converts to 
Christ, whose minds are embarrassed on the subject of 
Baptism ; and of parents in pedo-baptist churches, who 
withhold their infant children from this sacred ordinance. 
It was originally prepared in the form of sermons to my 
own congregation ; and therefore, "as much as possible, 
adapted to the popular mind. Many of the arguments 
are such as every minister of the gospel is, or ought to 
be, familiar with. They have been gathered unhesita^ 
tingly, wherever I have found them during a peiiod of 
many years ; and have been so much incorporated with 
my own cogitations, that, to a considerable extent, I am 
unable to say which is borrowed and which is original. 
I have not, as I am aware, aimed at originality for its 
own sa%e ; nor attempted it at all, except where my own 
thoughts seemed, if not better, at least as well suited to 
my general purpose as aJiy otlI6l^3 whidi I faM at com- 



It preface. 

mand. Nor have I thought it best to enlarge the volume 
by attempting to offer all the arguments on the subject 
which readily occur to mind, and which are believed to 
be sound and unanswerable ; but have selected only such 
as appear to be best adapted to enlighten and convince 
the plain and candid reader. 

The subject of Baptism, though a trite one, is still im- 
portant^ on several accounts, and therefore entitled to 
grave and careful consideration. If, however, its discus- 
sion in the present work has any peculiar merits, they 
are believed to consist chiefly in the presentation of fa- 
miliar arguments in a more than ordinarily clear and con- 
vincing light, and in the spirit of candor and kindness 
with which I have aimed to exhibit them. 

It is true that many able works — volumes, pamphlets, 
and tracts — having in view the same general object con- 
templated in this, have been already issued from the 
press. But no one that I have seen appears to be quite 
w^hat is required, to meet the wants of pastors and 
churches in gathering in the fruits of religious revivals — 
especially in communities where sentiments of an oppo- 
site cast have had considerable sway. The belligerent or 
caustic character which most of the publications on this 
subject bexir, has seemed to me to render even those de- 
signed for popular use, and in which the argument is con- 



PKEFACE. V 

elusive, highly objectionable as works to be put into the 
hands of recent converts ; and, for the same reason, not well 
calculated to be extensively useful in relieving the doubts 
and correcting the ening faith of older Christians. And 
such as are not liable to this objection are, for the most 
part, wanting in that simplicity, clearness; and force of 
argument, and that condensed yet comprehensive treat- 
ment of the subject, which are required in a work of this 
kind, intended for general and permanent use. Whether 
the present little volume is, in these respects, any better 
adapted to the wants of the Church than others have 
been, remains to be seen. But, having hope that some 
good may come of it to the cause of truth and the king- 
dom of Christ, I now respectfully offer it to the public. 

D. G 

Fredonia, January, 1854. 



CONTENTS. 



PA6S. 
lNTR0D\7Cn0N, •••««••••• . • 11 

CHAPTER I. 

IMPORT OF THE WOliD BAPTIZE. 

Primary and classic sense. Derived or secondary sense. 
Scriptural use of the word. Argument from Mark 7 : 
1-5, and Luke 11: 38. Argument from John 1: 26. 
Argument from Heb. 9: 10. Argument from John 3: 
22-26 IS 

CHAPTER II. 

DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 

Kot to represent the burial and resurrection of Christ. 
Examination of Rom. 6: 8-5, and Col. 2: 12. Illustra- 
tion from 1 Cor. 2 : 13, and Gal. 3: 2Y. Not to effect 
spiritual union with Christ. Adult converts spiritu- 
ally united to Christ before baptism. Unconverted 
adults not spiritually changed by baptism. Simon 
Magus. Infants not spiritually renewed by baptism. 
Experience and observation. What its design is. To- 
ken and seal of the covenant. Symbol of spiritual pu- 
rificatioa. Initiatory rite. . • . i . • . . 80 



riii CONTETfTS. 

CHAPTER III 

PAOK 

MODE OF BAPTISM. 

Example of Christ. Mode of Christ's baptism. Baptism 
of the eunuch. Baptism of the three thousand. Bap- 
tism of Saul. Baptism of the jailer and family. Bap- 
tism by the Spirit. Sprinkling of the blood of Christ. 52 

CHAPTER lY. 

INFANT BAPTISM— OB J EOTIONS CONSIDEREP. 

First objection — The Scriptures require faith and repent- 
ance before baptism. Second objection — No Scripture 
precept enjoining infant baptism. Third objection — 
No Scripture example of infant baptism 86 

' CHAPTER Y. 

INFANT BAPTISM ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 

The Church organized under the covenant made with 
Abraham. Infants included. The Christian Church 
a continuation of the same. The covenant still in 
force. Right to include her infant seed continued in 
the Christian Church, unless especially withdrawn. 
This right never withdrawn. Understanding of the 
Jewish converts. Silence of the unbelieving Jews. . . Ill 

CHAPTER YI. 

INFANT BAPTISM HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 

The Commission to baptize the nations. How the apos- 
tles must have understood it. Proselyte baptism. 
Baptism of households. Testimony of Justin Martyr — 



CONTENTS. ix 

PAQfi, 

Ireneus — Tertullian — Origen — Cyprian — Augus- 
tine — Pelagius. No record of the introduction of in- 
fant baptism 160 

CHAPTER VII. 

INFANT feAPTISM — DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINBD. 

Is baptism an initiatory rite t Relation of baptized in- 
fants to the Church. Why not admitted to the Lord's 
Supper. Why not subject to Church discipline. Ef- 
fect of infant baptism on the purity of the Church. 
Propriety of infant baptism. Rights of infants. Priv- 
ilege and duty of Christian parents 11^ 



INTEGDUCTIOK. 



The risen Saviour stood with the eleven on the Mount 
of Olives. He was about to asc^id into heaven to 
resume the glory which he had with the Father from 
eternity. He had completed the atoning sacrifice for 
men — had "magnified the law and made it honorable," 
— and had fully prepared the way for the proclamation 
of redeeming mercy to all the world. The legal dispen- 
sation had answered its purpose, and was terminated ; 
and thenceforth the gospel -— the good news of salvation 
by grace through faith — was to be more distinctly re- 
vealed, and made the animating principle of the Qiurch. 
He therefore gave, as his last charge, the gracious com- 
mission, *^ Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost." 

It is my design, in the following pages, to discuss the 
subject of Christian Baptism, with the view of showing, 
as clearly as I am able, what is intended by this com- 



Xll INTRODUCTIOIS". 

inand of the Saviour to baptize all nations. The course 
which I intend to pursue is, 

I. To define and defend the true import of the word 
baptize. 

II. Discuss the object or design of this rite. 

III. With the help of what light may be obtained from 
the two preceding points, examine the question directly, 
What is the proper mode of baptism, as a rite of the 
Christian Clmrch ? 

IV. Offer what I conceive to be a fair and sufficiently 
full investigation of the subject of infant baptism. 

V. Solve some questions which often linger about 
and perplex many minds, in regard to infant baptism, 
even after the argument is settled. 

It is hoped that such a range over the general subject 
of baptism as is here proposed, will be found, on the one 
hand, sufficiently comprehensive for ordinary readers, and 
on the other, not prove burdensome to any who feel in- 
terested in the subject. I will therefore proceed imme- 
diately to the discussion of these several topics in their 
order. 



CHRISTIAH BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

IMPOKT OF THE WOED BAPTIZE. 

The unhappy differences in the Christian 
Church on the subject of Baptism depend, to a 
great extent, on the meanings assigned to the 
word lajptize. If the honest inquirer after truth 
can be made to perceive clearly what is the just 
sense of this term, the way will then be prepared 
for him to appreheiid readily the whole Bible 
doctrine of Baptism. I will therefore commence 
this discussion with the following question : — 

What is the true and jprojper import of the 
vjorcl ^kptizeI 

Many candid and excellent men, as the reader 
knows, regard this word as meaning plu7ige or 
immerse^ and nothing else. But from this view 



14 

I must, in the present discussion, dissent ; and 
affirm that the Greek word from which this is 
formed, and which Christ and his apostles em- 
ployed to denote the administration of an ordi- 
nance in the Christian Church, has a variety of 
significations, depending on the circumstances 
in which it is used, and the subjects to which it 
is applied. When the Saviour instituted the 
sacrament of Christian baptism, he did not create 
the word by which it was to be called ; but 
employed a term which was then, and had 
long been, in familiar use. The word haptize 
(J^a'KTv^a) was as old as the Greek language, and 
is therefore by no means confined, in its appli- 
cation, to this ordinance of the Christian Church. 
It was used freely to signify immerse^ overwhehn^ 
wash^ cleanse or purify. It is needless to cite 
examples showing these several uses of the word. 
They encumber the pages of ahnost every book 
written in defence of sprinkling or pouring as a 
mode of baptism. And besides, it is of no con- 
sequence in this discussion, any fartlier than to 
prove its use in the last-mentioned sense, viz, 
purify or cleanse; and in this sense I hope 
fully to demonstrate its use. 

The primary or original meaning of the 



IMPORT OF TH15 W0E13. tC 

word seems to have been to plunge or im- 
merse ; in which sense the profane classie 
writers generally employ it. The other mean^ 
ing8 appear to have been derived from this 
by a natural law of association. Because the 
effect of immersing in water was commonly to 
wash, to cleanse or purify, the same word bap- 
tize^ which was at first used to denote only the 
mode by which this eftect was procui^ed, came 
at length, by association, to be used also to rep- 
resent simply the procurifbg of this effect^ without 
any reference to the mode of doing it. Hence 
haptism^ instead of always defining a specific 
manner of purifying, as by immersion, was, at a 
later period, also used generically to signify the 
act of pv/rifying^ irrespective of the mode j or 
purification by any mode whatever. This is the 
sense^ as I hope to show, in which the word is 
commonly^ if not invariably^ used hy the inspired 
writers. They seldom or never use it in the ori- 
ginal classic sense, but in this derived and sec- 
ondary sense. 

Although it is possible, and perhaps probable, 
that, under the Old Testament dispensation, re- 
ligious purifications, called sometimes in the 
Greek y^xuon baptisms^ wer© often perfornaed 



16 BAPTISM ; 

by immersion ; yet they were haptismSj not be- 
cause they were immersions, but because they 
^weroi purifications. In some cases, the washing 
of the wliole body was required ; and in others, 
only a sprinkling of the " water of purifying." 
But in no case w^as the purification imperatively 
required to be by immersion. When a general 
ablution of the body was called for, immersion, 
in some circumstances, might be the most con- 
venient or agreeable method ; and in many other 
circumstances, a more gradual process of wash- 
ing from a small vessel would be most convenient. 
Either method met the requirement of the law. 
In either case it was accounted purification. 

Purification was both external and internal. 
External purification was sometimes a physical 
cleansing, and sometimes merely a ceremonial 
act. Ceremonial purification was designed to be 
symbolical, either of internal moral purification, 
which consists in repentance, or a turning of the 
heart from sin to righteousness ; or of spiritual 
purification by the Holy Ghost, which consists 
in sanctification, or deliverance from the defile- 
ment of sin f or of legal purification, which 

■■ * I suppose that moral and spiritual purification are dia- 
tinguished chiefly by regarding the^ame efect as produced bj 



IMPORT OF THE WORD. ' 17 

consists in justification, or deliverance from lia- 
bility to punishment for sin, and wliicli always 
presupposes an atonement. 
' To enable the unprejudiced reader to see that 
the Greek word which we render ha^tize^ as 
used by the writers of the New Testament, has 
the general sense of purify^ wash or cleanse — 
and that, too, without regard to the mode of 
doing it — I tliink it will be only necessary that 
he examine with care and candor some passages 
of Scripture to which I will now^ invite his at- 
tention. 

Let him look firsts if he will, to Mark 7 : 1-5. 
"Then came together unto him the Pharisees, 
and certain of the scribes, which came from Je- 
rusalem. And when they saw some of his dis- 
ciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with 
unwashen) hands, they found fault. For the 
Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash 
their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of 
the elders. And when they come from the 
market, except they wash^ (Greek, hajptize^ they 

human or divine agency. "When the internal purification is 
considered in its relation to human agency, it is termed re- 
pentance, or moral purification ; and when considered in its 
relation to divine agency, it is called sanctification, or spir- 
itual purification. 



eat not. And many other tilings there be which 
they have received to hold, as the washing (Gr. 
haptizing) of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and of 
tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked 
liirn, Why walk not thy disciples according to 
the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with 
unwashen hands ? " Now, what is the general 
idea running through this passage ? Is it not 
plainly the following? — The Jews,at this time, 
were very particular in observing the custom, 
according to the tradition of the elders, oi puri- 
fying themselves before taking their meals. 
And these Pharisees and scribes from Jerusa- 
l^em were displeased, and complained to Christ, 
when they saw this custom departed from l)y 
some of his disciples. It was their standing 
practice to wash their hands before eating ; and 
' when they returned from the market, except 
they washed they ate not.' When the washing 
of their hands is spoken of, the Greek word here 
employed for ''wash" is ^ntlo^ nipto — a word 
that never defines the lyiannev of washing, but 
permits it to be done in aiiy way. Tliis no one 
will dispute. And when they are said to wash 
on returning from market, and to wash their 
" cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables," the ori- 



Import of the word. 19 

ginal word for " wash " is ^a^7i^o, ha^tizo. Here 
the two words seem to be used as meaning 
the same thing, and are accordingly bot-h trans- 
hxted by the English word wash. But if 7iij^to 
and l)aptizo do here mean the same thing, then 
haptizo in this place means simply to wash or 
purify, because nipto never means any thing 
els^. 

But if it is contended that the two words do 
not here mean the same thing, but that there is 
an extension of the idea, in passing from the 
loashing on ordinary occasions to the haptizing 
after returning from market, — I answer, If it 
were proved that there is this extension of the 
idea, it would not follow that the baptism here 
spoken of was necessarily by immersion. The 
most that it would imply is that, after returning 
from market, a more general and thorough ablu- 
tion of the body was had than was required on 
ordinary occasions. But this more general 
washing was simply for the purpose of thorough 
purification; and consequently this haptism 
was simply a purification — as truly so as the 
washing of the hands. But this supposed change, 
or extension of the idea, in passing from the one 
word to the other, is mere conjecture — it is 



not proved, and cannot be. The evangelist, in 
recording this cornphiint of the Pharisees and 
scribes, takes occasion to speak of the general 
custom of the Jews on the subject oi purifyhig 
themselves before taking their meals ; and states 
wliat that custom is on common occasions, and 
what it is when they have been to market. 
But the idea of purifying is the only one intro- 
duced, wdth perhaps the different degrees of 
thoroughness required on the different occa- 
sions. This is evident from the public declara- 
tion w^iich the Saviour made on this very occa- 
sion. Verse 15, " There is nothing from with- 
out a man that, entering into him, can defile 
him ; but the things that come out of him, these 
are tliey that defile the man." Their custom of 
washing or baptizing before eating was founded 
on the supposition that they might possibly have 
touched something w^liich, by the ceremonial 
law, was accounted unclean ; and. by handling 
their food in that state they might pollute it, and 
so defile themselves, by eating that which was 
unclean. Hence they purified themselves be- 
fore eating. This is evidently the meaning, and 
the only meaning of their washing or baptizing 
at such times. A similar complaint against the 



IMPORT OF THE WORD. 21 

Sanour himself was made by a Pharisee who ^ 
had invited Christ to eat in his house, as men- 
tioned in Luke 11 : 38. The passage, with the 
connection, is as follows : " And as he spake, 
-a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with 
him : and he went in, and sat down to meat. 
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that 
he had not first washed (Gr. baptized) before 
dinner." Now, suppose the Saviour, before eat- 
ing, had taken a small vessel of water, and, with 
a towel, ha5 proceeded to wash himself thor- 
oughly — all over, if you please — it would not 
have been immersion at all ; and yet, does any 
candid mind think that the Pharisee, in that 
case, would have marvelled that Jesus did not 
get into a bathing-tub and immerse himself? 
Was it immersion or purification that the Phar- 
isee required? Manifestly the latter, although 
it is called by the evangelist haptism. The 
Pharisee " marvelled that he had not first lap- 
tized before dinner." But, that purifying or 
cleansing was the idea involved is evident from 
what the Saviour says in reply. '' And the Lord 
said unto him. Now do ye Pharisees makeoleaj^ 
the outside of the cup and the platter ; but your 
inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.'^ 



22 BAPTISM ; 

It w^s the fact that he had not first madi!: clkan 
or PURIFIED himself that the Pharisee complainec'^ 
of. But " bai)tized " is the original word which 
Luke employs to express this idea. This shows 
in what sense he uses the term. Immersion 
would indeed have answered the purpose of the 
Pharisee ; and so would anything else by ^vhich 
purification should have been efi:ected. The 
word " baptized " in this place has clearly no 
reference to tlie mode^ but only to the effect ; 
and is synonymous with clectnsed or purified. 
The same is true in the case above mentioned, 
wliere the disciples were complained of in a 
similar way. And when the Jews, as above, are 
said to hold the custom of washing (baptizing) 
" cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and tables," 
or dining couches, (for all agree that this is what 
is meant by xXivgjv, the word rendered '' tables " 
— couches on which they reclined at meals,) 
it is preposterous to suppose that immersion is 
here the essential idea of baptism ; or that the 
w-ord conveys any other idea than purification. 
Who can believe, from the mere use of this word 
in such a connection — and is there other evi- 
dence ? — tiiat the Jews were accustomed, before 
every -meal, to immerse their couches^ as well as 



rwrPOKT OF THE WORD. 28 

their cooking utensils and table fnrnitnre ; and 
that, too, for the sake of the manyier of doing it 
rather than the effect f It was plainly a cere- 
monial purification, and might be performed by- 
washing in any way, or by sprinkling, which 
was a common mode of purifying under the law. 
The baptism of their couches was most proba- 
bly performed by sprinkling. No one, it seems 
to me, who has not a theory to support, can be- 
lieve it was done by immersion. And these 
cases illustrate the meaning of the word hajytize 
as used by these inspired writers. It is jpwrify 
or <?fe(^7^5^ — denoting simply the procuring of 
an effect ; and that without regard to the mode 
of doing it. 

That this is the true meaning of the word, as 
used by the evangelists, is further evident from 
the question put to John the Baptist, (John 1 : 
25,) when the Jews sent priests and Levites to 
ask him who he was. He having denied that 
he was the Christ, or the literal Elias, or any 
one of the old prophets returned, they ask him, 
'< Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that 
Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? " This 
shows that there was an expectation among them 
that Christ, when he should come, would ic^- 



24 

tize. But was there anything in the prophecies 
concerning Christ to awaken the expectation 
that he would imrncrse^ or be an immerser J 
Not one word. Why, then, should it have been 
expected that he would baptize f And why 
should it have been suspected that John must 
be the Christ from, the fact that he baptized? 
The reason is plain. It was distinctly declared 
(Mai. 3 : 23,) that Christ or Messiah should pu- 
rify J and this was therefore expected of him. 
As to what would be the nature of his purify- 
ing, their ideas were vague and confused. But 
as soon as John appeared, officially baptizing, 
and administering the rite to many of tlie priests 
and Levites, as well as otliers, they at once 
thought they perceived in him the predicted 
^'purifier." Baptism was understood to mean 
purification. A great purifier had appeared, 
who, according to prophecy, was ' purifying the 
sons of Levi ;' and they readily imagined that 
this must be the Christ. On no other principle 
can it be accounted for, that John's baptizing 
should have been taken as an indication of his 
being the Christ, than that baptism was under- 
stood to be purification, and they knew Christ 
was to come as a purifier. This shows the 



IMPORT OF THE WORD. 25 

meaning of the word laptize^ as it was religious- 
ly used among the Jews in tlie time of John. 
It was not immerse, or sprinkle, or pour, or any- 
thing else which described a particular mode of 
doing a thing ; but purify^ having no regard 
whatever to the mode. And the term hajpturm 
w^as.usedto denote any and every sort of re- 
ligious purification, w^hether ceremonial, moral, 
spiritual, or legal — that is, sacrificial. In speak- 
ing of the baptism of John, the w^ord is used to 
denote the ceremonial purification w^ith water, 
and also the moral purification of repentance. 
In repentance, the sinner withdraws his mind 
from the pollution of sin, and turns it to righteous- 
ness and purity. Hence it is moral purifica- 
tion. John preached the baptism of repentance 
-— in other w^ords, the purification of repentance. 
He preached that men should repent, and thus 
purify themselves in their moral affections. 
And as a sign of this moral purification which 
they professed, he administered the ceremonial 
purification with water. Water baptism, con- 
sidered as ceremonial purification^ is strikingly 
emblematical of repentance, which is moral pu- 
rification. But baptism, considered as immeV" 
m>n^ or anything else which denotes inodcy ean- 
B 



26 BAPnsM ; 

not, T\'itli any degree of filness, represent re- 
pentance ; because there is nothing about re- 
pentance which resembles the mc>6Z^ of immersion, 
or of sprinkling, or of pouring. It is not, then, 
the manner or mode of doing the thing which 
constitutes religious baptism ; but the procurmg 
of a certain effect^ viz. ^purification. Any pro- 
cess by which purification is effected is baptism^ 
in the religious sense of the term. 

In Ileb. 9 : 10, the apostle calls the various 
purifications under the law ^' divers baptisms." 
'' Divers washings " it is in our translation ; but 
in the original Greek, the word for " washings" 
is,literally rendered,'' 5a^^2*6^m5." In this chap- 
ter he labors to show liis Jewish brethren that 
the Mosaic ritual could not take away sin, or 
produce real purity of heart and conscience, but 
afforded only an outward purification of the flesh; 
while the application of Christ's blood, of which 
these '' divers baptisms" were emblematical, was 
able to eflect.a true cleansing — a purifying of 
the conscience and heart — a deliverance from sin 
and condemnation. In the 10th vei*se he states, 
in general terms, in what tlie tabernacle service 
consisted. It " stood only in meats and drinks, 
and divers baptisms, and carnal ordinances," 



IMPORT OF THE WORD. 27 

Then, in the 13th verse, he adverts again to tliis 
service more in detail, and shows what he meant 
by the " divers baptisms." '^ For," says he, '' if 
the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes 
of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth 
to the jpurifying of the flesh," &c. The ^' di- 
vers 'baptisms^'^ then, were divers purifyings^ 
performed by " sprinkling the unclean " with 
" the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes 
of an heifer." 

The reader wdll permit me to offer one more 
passage in proof of the fact that the sacred' wri- 
ters use the term hajptize in the sense oi j>urify. 
It is in John 3 : 22-26. While John was bap- 
tizing in Enon, Jesus with his disciples came 
into Judea and baptized. This was by some re- 
garded as indicating a sort of rivalry between 
John and Jesus. Some of John's disciples ap- 
pear to have felt a little jealously of Jesus, as 
if he were trespassing on the prerogatives of 
their master ; and they fell into a dispute with 
certain Jews on the subject, which they referred 
to John to settle. The account of the matter is 
in these words. ^' After these things came Jesus 
and his disciples into the land of Judea; and 
there he tarried with them and baptized* And 



28 BAPTISM ; 

John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, 
because there was ranch water there ; and they 
came and were baptized : for John was not vet 
cast into prison. Then tliere arose a question 
between some of John's disciples and the Jews 
about imrify lug. ^ And thej came unto John and 
said unto him. Rabbi, he that was w^ith thee be- 
yond Jordan, to w^hom thou bearest witness, the 
same* baptizeth, and all men come to him." 
John immediately acknow^ledges the superiority 
of Christ, and thus settles the question. Now^, 
it is perfectly manifest, on the face of the narra- 
tive, that this W'as a dispute growing out of the 
rival claims set up for John and Jesus, by their 
respective adherents, touching the right to bap- 
tize. It was in fact a question about baptizing ; 
and yet the evangelist calls it " a question-about 
purifying." This, I think, makes it abundantly 
evident that he uses the terms hajythlfiff and pu- 
rifying interchangably, as meaning the same 
thing. Any process of purifjdng, therefore, is 
baptizing; because the Greek word xa^a^Krju-s, 
here translated ''purifying," is never restricted 
to any particular mode. The mode of purifying 
is always to be determined by some accompany- 
ing term ot term^^ andnot by the word purify 



IMPOKT UF THE WOKD. 29 

(x-'daf;i';^G) itself. And since laptize is used as a 
sjnionyni oi vuriftj^ it is manifestly improper to 
ascribe to it the specific and modal sense of im- 
merse, or pour, or sprinkle. Its meaning is 
more general, and regards simply an effect which 
either of tliese modes may procure. Purify is 
its most exact definition. 



CHAPTER II. 

DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 

'What is the true object or design of Christian 
hajptism ? It is doubtless owing, in a great de- 
gree, to a want of accurate understanding on this 
point, that so much difference exists among 
evangelical Christians in regard to this ordinance. 
If I could be sure of fixing in the reader's mind 
correct ideas of the design of baptism, I should 
feel little concern in respect to his views of the 
mode^ or the proper sid)jects of the rite. But let 
me do what I can to this end. 

The belief is extensively entertained that one 
main design of baptism is to syiiibolize and com- 
raemorate the hurial and resurrection of Christ, 
This, in my opinion, is a radical error, and ought 
to be corrected. The Bible nowhere teaches 
tliat such is the main desi^'n, or anv desi^-n at all 
of baj)tism. There are, however, two passages 
of Scripture which, by many, are thought to sus- 
tain this view, and whicli it is proper here to 



BAPTISM ; ITS DESIGN. 31 

' examine. The first is in Rom. 6 : 3-5. " Know 
je not that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ \vere baptized into his death ? There- 
fore we are buried with him, by baptism, into 
death ; that like as Christ was raised up from 
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 
also should walk in newness of life. For if we 
have been planted together in the likeness of his 
death, we shall be also in tlie likeness of his res- 
urrection." Now, I think that a careful and 
impartial examination of this passage will con- 
vince us that, by the baptism here spoken of is 
not meant the baptism of loafer, but that sjnrit- 
iial baptism, or purification, by which the heart 
is renewed, and the believer becomes dead to sin 
and alive to righteousness. The connection of 
the passage sIiovn^s that the object of the apostle 
is to declare what must be the moral eflect of 
justification by grace through faith in Christ. 
In the preceding chapters of this epistle, he had 
clearly taught tliis doctrine of justification by 
grace, in opposition to the Jewish idea of 
justification hj the vrorks of tlie law ; and had 
sustained his position by the most cogent argu- 
mentation. But now he anticipates an objection 
that w^ould naturally arise in many minds, espe- 



32 

cially in such as were exposed to the influence 
of Judaizing teachers. The objection is, that 
this doctrine would lead to laxity of morals — 
that, if it he true that " v/here sin abounded 
grace did much more abound," then men may 
feel at liberty to live in sin, since they thereby 
furnish opportunity for the exercise of the more 
grace. " What shall we say then ? " he asks. 
" Shall we continue in sin that grace may 
abound ? " And here he proceeds to reply to 
this objection, in the passage before us, by urg- 
ing our hajptism into Christ as a guaranty against 
such perversion of grace. " God forbid ! How 
shall we that are dead to sin live any longer 
therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized 
into his death ? Therefore we are buried with 
him, by baptism, into death ; " — plainly mean- 
ing death to sin. By our spiritual purification, 
or baptism into Christ, we so sympathize with 
him as to die unto sin as he died for sin. Tims 
we are said to be ''baptized [puriKed] into his 
death." The baptism or purification of which 
the apostle here speaks is one that produces 
death to sin ; so as to furnish a perfect answer 
to the above objection raised against salvation 



IT.^ DESIGN. 83 

by grace. But baptism with water produces no 
such death to sin. And the objection against 
salvation by grace through faith, that it must 
tend to licentiousness of manners, receives no 
refutation from the fact of our baptism, \i water 
baptism be meant. And yet, the apostle here 
ofters our haptism as the security against this 
otherwise dangerous tendency. But if spiritual 
baptism, or purification of heart be meant, then 
the argument of the apostle is perfectly conclu- 
sive, and the objection is thoroughly answered. 
Our baptism produces death to sin, and " how 
shall we that are dead to sin live any longer 
therein ? " We are ^' buried into death " to sin 
by our spiritual baptism ; and of course it is fair 
to conclude that ' sin shall not henceforth have 
dominion over us.' '' That like as Christ was 
raised u^^ from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also should walk in newness of life." 
In this expression the apostle shows what bap- 
tism he is speaking of. It is a baptism which 
produces death to sin, and a subsequent '' walk 
in newness of life." But every one knows that 
\\\Q outward ordinance of Water baptism produ- 
ces no such change in the lives of men, and 
that spiritual baptism does ; because it is a puri- 



34 BAPTISM ; 

fication of the fountain of moral action — the 
heart. '' For if we have been planted together 
in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in 
the likeness of his resnrrection^." The word 
here translated " planted together " (cru/^-^uToi) 
is one that is used to express the situation of 
young trees or plants which have been so plant- 
ed or set as to sprout and graw together ; and 
therefore it involves the idea of intimate union. 
It is here used figuratively, to signify our union 
with Christ, or conformity to the likeness of 
Christ, in respect to his death — being ourselves 
dead to sin ; so that, as he arose from death, like 
the planted seed which sprouts and grows again, 
we also in like manner shall arise to a new and 
holy life. Thus w^e are associated with Christ 
both in death and resurrection, like seeds plant- 
ed together, and sprouting and growing together. 
And the argument is that, if we are thus asso- 
ciated w^ith him in death, by virtue of our bap- 
tism — our spiritual purification — then we shall 
also be similarly associated witli him in a resur- 
rection to a new life ; and hence cannot " con- 
tinue in sin." The succeeding context carries 
out this same idea, showing plainly as language 
can, that what tho apostle endeavors to establish 



ITS DESIGN. 35 

is the fact that, in our laptism^ whatever its 
mode, we become, in comparieon with our for- 
mer state, dead to sin and alive to righteousness. 
But this is not true at all of the outward ordi- 
nance of water baptism, as all experience proves ; 
and yet it is eminently true of spiritual baptism, 
or purification by the Holy Ghost. To my own 
mind, therefore, it is clear that this passage has 
nothing to do with teaching the design of water 
baptism ; and much less does it teach anything 
in relation to the mode of administering it It 
says indeed that ''we are buried with him, by 
baptism, into death ; " but it is by spiritual bap- 
tism — purification of the heart by the Holy 
Spirit — that we are buried into death to sin. 
And hence, as Christ was raised from the dead 
and lives again, so we also who have received 
tliis spiritual baptism shall '' walk in newness 
of life." This is evidently what the passage 
teaches ; and this is the whole of it. It gives 
not the remotest intimation that our baptism 
with water is designed to commemorate the bu- 
rial and resurrection of Christ, or to symbolize 
that event, or even to express our faith in it. It 
is true that the fact of our baptism with water 
does declare our faith in the death, burial, and 



86 BAPTISM ; 

resurrection of Christ, as also in all tliat he has 
done to save men, — not especially in one thing 
more than another ; — but the inanner or mode 
of our baptism does not ; nor is that njode at all 
indicated in this passage* The apostle does not, 
in this place, indicate either the mode or the 
design of water baptism ; and for the plain 
reason that he says nothing about it. 

Now let us look at the passage again, substi- 
tuting the ^Nordi purify for haptize^ and we shall 
see its fitness and force. '' Know ye not that so 
many of us as were purified into Jesus Christ,* 
were purified into his death ? [If we are thus 
spiritually joined to Christ, we are spiritually 
joined to his death.] Therefore we are buried 
with him by [our spiritual] purification, into 
death [to sin] ; that like as Christ was raised up 
from the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
so we also should walk in newness of life. For 
if we have been planted together in the likeness 
of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of 
his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old 

* This form of expression, "purified into Christ," seems to 
be used because, in spiritual purification, we are brouglit into 
spiritual unio7i witli Christ, as branches engrafted into a liv- 
ing vin^ ; l^aAc^^ ** puri^^d ia^Q (Jhrist," 



ITS DESIGN. 87 

man is crucified with liiin [by our spiritual bap- 
tism or purification,] that the body of sin 
might be destroyed, that henceforth we should 
not serve sin." Here we see that the whole drift 
of this passage is, not to teach what water bap- 
tism is intended to signify, nor how it should be 
administered ; but to sliow how our spiritual 
baptism operates to produce death to sin, and a 
new life of holiness ; and thus obviate the objec- 
tion to salvation by grace through faith, viz. 
that it must give license to sin. 

If it be said, as it often is, that. in our baptism 
with w^ater, \N(d prof ess death to sin, aiidj)ro7nise 
a new life of holiness, I admit it ; but that this 
is what Paul means in the passage wdiich we have 
been considering cannot be admitted. Such an 
interpretation would destroy the entire force of 
the apostle's argument. How does it answ^er the 
objection that the doctrine of salvation by faith 
in Christ must give license to sin, by saying that, 
wdien we are baptized with water, \ye profess to 
be dead to sin, SLiid promise to live lives of holy 
obedience ? Who does not know that professions 
are often false, and promises often broken ? And 
is it to be supposed that the great apostle, after 
having show^n such masterly power of argument 



38 BAPTISM ; 

in all Ills epistle up to this very point, would 
here broach an apparently formidable objection 
to his doctrine, and then oiler to it snch a flimsy 
reply — merely saying that when we are bap- 
tized, we profess to die iinto sin and live unto 
righteousness ? Or again, does he speak of this 
objection only for the sake of founding upon it 
an exJiortation to Christians, to ' let not sin reign 
in their mortal bodies' ? If so, then he does 
not pretend to answer it at all ; but merely states 
the objection, and there leaves it unanswered, 
to perplex and worry his readers — simply tell- 
ing Christians that they have professed^ in bap- 
tism, to shun the evil ^ which he mentions as 
seeming to result so naturally from his doctrine, 
and exliorting them to be true to their profes- 
sion ! Is this like Paul ? Does he usually meet 
difficulties in doctrine with sucli evasion? And 
why ascribe it to him now? Not certainly be- 
cause there is any necessity for it, onh' for the sake 
of maintaining what, at best, must be regarded 
as a doubtful exegesis. Let it be understood 
that the apostle speaks here, not of water bap- 
tism, but of spiritual baptism, or the renewing 
of the Holy 'Ghost, and then he speaks like him- 
self, under divine inspiration \ and his argument 



ITS DESIGN. 89 

is full, and clear, and conclusive. I do not, 
therefore, hesitate to say that, in my opinion, 
this is the baptism of which he speaks, and this 
is the sense of the passage nnder consideration. 
The other passage referred to is in Col. 2 : 12, 
and is evidently intended to be parallel to the 
one just examined, only less full. The expres- 
sion, " buried with him in baptism," must receive 
the same interpretation. By being '' buried with 
him " is meant, not buried in w^ater, but buried 
to sin. The true believer is, in relation to sin, 
in a com/pai'ative sense^ like one dead and buried. 
I say, ill a comparative sense ; because it is not 
true ahsohitely^ but only in comparison w4th the 
state in wdiich he was before his spiritual bap- 
tism. Sin does not any longer control him. He 
has renounced it, put it away, and is, in a meas- 
ure, dead to its charms. And by being ''•' risen 
with him, through the faith of the operation of 
God," is meant, not risen from under the water, 
but risen to a " newmess of life " in Christ. That 
the burial and resurrection of the believer here 
spoken of, mean a burial to sin and resurrec- 
tion to a new and holy life, rather than a burial 
in water and resurrection from under water, is 
plain from the connection. Let me give the 



40 BAPTISM ; 

passage, with the verse before and after it. " In 
whom also ye are circumcised with tlie circum- 
cision made without liands, in putting oif tho 
body of tlie sins of the flesh by the circumcis- 
ion of Christ ; buried with him in baptism, 
wherein also ye are risen Avith him, through the 
faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
him from the dead. And you, being dead in 
your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, 
hath he quickened together with him, having 
forgiven you all. trespasses." By " the circum- 
cision made without hands, in putting off the 
body of the sins of the flesh," is evidently meant 
regeneration by the Spirit of God. , This is spir- 
itual puritication. Circumcision was clearly re- 
garded as a kind of purifying ordinance ; and 
hence spiritual puriflcation or regeneration is 
figuratively called '' circumcision made without 
hands." With this circumcision, believers are 
here said to be circumcised in Christ ; and this 
idea the apostle presses by saying that, " in bap- 
tism," or spiritual puriflcation, previously called 
" circumcision made without hands," they are so 
far crucified to sin and delivered from its power, 
that they may properly be said to be ^' buried 
with him^" and with him " risen " to a new life, 



ITS DESIGN. 41 

through faith in the operation of God who raised 
Christ from the dead. The general idea is pre- 
cisely the same as that in Romans ; and in nei- 
ther place do I think the apostle gives any in- 
struction on the subject of water baptism, either 
as to its design or mode of administixction j but 
refers entirely to spiritual baptism, or purifica- 
tion by the Holy Ghost, and which he also calls 
" the circumcision made without hands," and 
'^ the circumcision of Christ." 

This exposition is fortified by the fact that 
the same apostle repeatedly uses the word hap- 
tize in the sense which I have here supposed. 
For example; in 1 Cor. 12: 13, he says, "For 
by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, 
whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; 
and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 
To be '' baptized into one body " is evidently to 
be, by baptism, joined into one body. But it is 
not true that all who receive water baptism are 
joined into one body — certainly not into one 
spiritual body, which is doubtless the tiling in- 
tended. Or, if it be alleged tliat by '' one body" 
is meant one visible body, as the visible church, 
then I reply, This interpretation w^ould make 
another clause of the passage a falsehood ; be- 



42 

cause, not all tlie visible chnrcli 'Miavc been 
made to drink into one Spirit," as their wide and 
antagonistic diversities of conduct and cluirac- 
ter too sadly testify. jS'o, he refers to a baptism 
by which all who receive it are joined 'Mnto one 
body, and all made to drink into one Spirit." 
He cannot therefore mean water baptism, for 
snch is not tlie effect of water baptism ; but he 
must mean spiritual baptism, of which such is 
the natural and necessary effect. And indeed 
he says he means spiritual baptism. " For by 
one Spirit are we all baptized," &c. The word 
Spirit here plainly denotes the agent by wlioni 
the baptism is effected, and can only refer to the 
Holy Spirit. What the apostle therefore afSrms 
of all true Christians is, that they are all baptized 
by one and the same Holy Spirit ; and of course 
he refers to spiritual baptism, and not baptism 
with water. 

There is another passage in Gal. 3 : 27, where 
tins apostle uses the very same expression as in 
the disputed passage in Eoni. 6 : 3-5, '' baptized 
into Christ," and wliere he cannot refer to ba]^- 
tism with water, but must mean s|)iritual bap- 
tism. '' For as many of you as have been bap- 
tized into Christ have put on Christ." Why 



ITS DESIGN. 43 

docs he say, ''As many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ," if he meant it of water 
baptism? lie was addressing the churches of 
Gahxtia, whose members had doul)tle3s all been 
baptized with water. But his remark plainly 
implies that not all of them had certainly been 
" baptized into Christ," as he uses the word'. Ilis 
reference was therefore not to water, but spirit- 
ual baptism. And this construction of the term 
is forced upon ns by the necessity of the case, 
iHiless we would make the apostle afSrm wdiat 
every one kjiows to be false, when he says, ''As 
many as have been baptized into Christ have put 
on Christ." "Who has yet to learn that this is 
not true in respect to water baptism ? And yet 
it is emphatically true of spiritual baptism. He 
must therefore have reference to the latter, and 
cannot refer to the former. And this construction 
is made still more invulnerable by what he says of 
the same class of persons in the verse next prece- 
ding. " Ye are all the children of God, by faith 
in Jesus Christ." But who will dare to say that 
all who have been baptized with water are " the 
cliildren of God by faith in Jesus Christ " I Cer- 
tainly not my brethren who think that to be 
" buried with Christ in baptism " means to be 



44 

burled in the water. Xeither do I. And wliat 
then does the apostle mean by saying that " as 
many as liave been baptized into Christ liave 
put on Christ " ? To what l)aptism does he refer ? 
Water baptism, as the reader must perceive, 
it cannot be ; spiritual baptism it must be — the 
baptism, or purification of the heart, by the 
Holy Spirit, through faitli. 

But if the apostle is so in the habit of using 
the word hciptize in this spiritual sense, then 
there is nothing constrained or unnatural 'in 
giving it the same sense in those passages in 
Kom.. and Col. which we have been considering, 
And if he uses the phrase '' baptized into Christ, 
here in Galatians, to signify imited to Christ Jjy 
spiritual haptism — by purification of the heart 
through faith — it is certainly reasonable to con- 
clude that he uses the very same language in 
the same sense in Rom. 6 : 3, where he says that 
" so many of us as w^ere baptized into Jesus 
. Christ, were baptized into his death." And if 
lie here refers, not to water baptism, but to spir- 
itual — as he does by the same expression in 
Galatians — then he must also mean spiritual baj)- 
tism in the next verse, when he says, " we are 
buried with him, by baptism, into death. ^' And 






ITS DESIGN. 45 

if lie means spiritual baptism here, he does uii- 
qiiestional)ly mean the same tiling in tlie paral- 
lel passage in CoL 2 : 12. ^' Buried with him in 
baptism, wherein also ye are risen with hiui 
through the iiiith of the operation of God who 
hath raised him from the dead." 

I beheve, therefore, that all the support which 
these celebrated passages have been supposed 
to give to the doctrine, that the sacrament of bap- 
tism in the Christian Church is designed to rep- 
resent the burial and resurrection of Christ, is a 
total mistake — that it results from an entire 
misapprehension of the apostle's language. It 
appears to me perfectly plain that he does not, 
in these passages, speak of water baptism at all ; 
and consequently gives no intimation as to the 
proper design of this ordinance, or mode of ad- 
ministering it ; but on the contrary, confines the 
idea to spiritual baptism — purification by the 
Holy Spirit — and the moral effect of this work 
in producing death to sin and life to righteous- 
ness. 

But if these passages (Eom. 6 : 3-5, and Col. 
2: 12,) do not teach that the design of water 
baptism in the Church is to represent the burial 
and resurrection of Christ, then this doctrine is 



46 BAPTISM ; 

certainly not taught in the Bible, and onght to 
be given up. There are no other Scripture pas- 
sages to be relied on by its advocates, when 
these fail them. In. truth, there was no separate 
ordinance given to represent the burial and 
resurrection of Christ ; nor was any needed, 
since these events were so closely connected 
with his death, which is represented in the 
sacred Supper. 

Having now shown, and as I trust conclusively, 
that it is no part of the design of water baptism, 
to represent or commemorate the burial and res- 
urrection of Christ, I observe, in the next place, 
that many suppose water baptism to be a sacra- 
ment^ hyineans of vjhich the subject of it hecomes 
a partaker of those sj^iritital graces to/dch char' 
acterize the adopted children of God ; and that^ 
consequently^ the design of it is to introduce us 
into the spiritual family of God^ and thus make 
us heirs of salvation, Tlie objection to this doc- 
trine arises chiefly from the fact that it is ;?6>^ 
true. It is not- true as applied to the baptism 
of either adults or infants. 

1. It is not true as applied to the baptism of 
adults. These, as every Bible reader knows, 
are never baptized by scriptural authority until 



ITS DESIGN. 47 

after tliey are supposed to liave become united 
to Christ, and consequently to the spiritual fam- 
ily of God, by repentance and faith. And be- 
ing in the exercise of '' repentance towards God 
and iaith towards our Lord Jesus Christ," they 
are thus partakers of the spiritual graces which 
characterize the children of God ;^nd that, too, 
before their baptism, and as a j)rerequisite to 
their baptism. And if they may not be bap- 
tized with water until after they are supposed 
to have entered the spiritual family of God by 
the moral baptism of repentance and the affilia- 
ting exercise of faith in Christ, then water bap- 
tism certainly cannot be designed to introduce 
them into this spiritual family. And if, in any 
case, w^ater baptism be administered to a man 
who had not already become a child of God by 
faith, this ordinance does not make him such, 
by wdiatever hands administered. Simon Ma- 
gus was baptized while in his natural state of 
estrangement from God, having only yielded an 
intellectual assent to Christianity, without the 
faith of the heart ; and Peter, under inspiration, 
declared him to be without part or lot in the re- 
ligion of Christ, and ^'in the gall of bitterness, 
and the bond of iniquity*" 



48 BAPTISM ; 

2. N^either is baptism, as administered to m- 
fanU^ designed to introduce them into God's 
spiritual family, and make them heirs of salva- 
tion. AVhatever the Saviour designed it for, it 
doubtless answers that design. But tlie melan- 
choly fact is apparent to all, that not a few bap- 
tized infants grow up to maturity witliout evin- 
cing any of the distinguishing traits of Christian 
character ; butj on the contrary, maintaining 
the worst propensities of their nature unchecked, 
and practically showing, to the last of life, an 
unyielding aversion to Christ and his cause. 
Tlieir being baptized, therefore, does not make 
tliem Christians, in any proper sense of the term. 
It does not make them partakers of spiritual life 
in Christ, or in any degree change the moral 
state of their souls. Baptized children, as I 
hope hereafter to show, may derive great spirit- 
ual benefit from the fact of their baptism ; and 
hence it is immensely important to them. But, 
whatever its eflfect may be, it is not to renew 
their moral nature, and constitute them spirit* 
ually the children of God. The idea of eftect- 
ing spiritual regeneration, whether in adults or 
infants, through the outward ordinance of bap- 
tism, so as to induce in them the exercise of 



ITS DESIGN. 49 

Christian graces, and bring them into saving 
relation to Christ, is so far from finding any le- 
gitimate support in the Bible, and so glaringly 
opposed to experience and observation, that it 
seems mysterious how men of sense and candor 
Can believe or teach it. And yet they do, or 
something very like it. But I will only add, I 
am sorry for them. 

I will now state, in brief, what I suppose to 
be the true object or design of this ordinance. 

And first^ the ordinance of baptism is, as I 
suppose, designed to be a visible sign or token 
upon him who receives it^ showing that he is in 
covenant relation to God. The covenant in 
which he stands with God pledges him to walk 
before the Lord in a holy life, and also pledges 
the Lord to be his God. And baptism is the 
toJcen of this covenant. It is also the ratifying 
seal of the covenant — closing the engagement 
between the parties, and standing as a perpet- 
Tial witness to the obligation confessed. This 
view of the design of baptism is derived mainly 
from its analogy to circumcision, and from the 
perpetuity of the covenant with Abraham — ^ 
topics which I intend to discuss in a subsequent 
chapter, 

^0 .4 



60 

A second design of water baptism is to repre- 
sent syinljolically that internal jpurification of 
the soul which takes pla^e in regeneration^ or true 
conversion to Christ , wliether considered in its 
aspect of moral purification by repentance, or 
spiritual purification by the renewing of the 
Holy Ghost, or sacrificial, that is, legal purifica- 
tion by the application of Christ's atoning blood. 
Viewed in either of these aspects, this internal 
purification is meant to be represented to the 
eye of sense by the outward ordinance of water 
purification, or baptism. That baptism is thus 
designed to be significant of internal purifica- 
tion is, I think, admitted by nearly or quite all 
classes of evangelical Christians, whatever other 
designs they may believe it to have. I need 
not therefore argue this point. 

In the third place, baptism is designed as the 
rite of initiation into the visible Church of 
XJhrist * so that whoever properly receives the 
ordinance of baptism becomes thereby, in some 
•sense at least, a member of the visible Church 
on earth. This also is but seldom disputed, and 
may pass without further remark in tliis place, 
although it will be appropriately discussed in 
the closing chapter of this work. 



ITS DESIGN. 51 

These are my views, suramarilj expressed, as 
to wliat is the true intent of Christian baptism. 
I do not attempt now to argue them at all, be- 
cause, as I have said, the tJdrd will be adverted 
to again in the closing chapter, while the second 
is generally admitted, and the ^Ve^^ w^ill natu- 
rally be considered in the chapter on the Abra- 
liamic covenant. 



CHAPTER III. 

MODE OF BAPTISM. 

In the preceding chapters, I have endeavored 
to make plain to my readers the two points 
respecting the import of the word haptize^ and 
the design of baptism. In the first chapter it 
was shown that, although the earlier nse of the 
word haptize^ or rather of the Greek ha/ptizo^ was 
to signify the mode of an action, as immerse, 
plunge, or overwhelm, and it is generally em- 
ployed in this sense by the profane classic wri- 
ters ; yet it gradually acquired, by a natural 
law of association, another sense, denoting not 
the 7node of the action, but the ej^ect procured 
by the action. As the natural effect of iinmer- 
Bion in clean water was to purify, the word hap- 
iize came at length to signify cleanse or purify. 
And at the time when the New Testament was 
written, as also when the Old Testament was 
translated into Greek, this word was used in both 
the original sense of immerse^ and the derived 



BAPTISM ; ITS MODE. 53 

and secondary sense o^ piirify, I endeavored 
to show froin the Scriptures, and I think siicess- 
fiiUv, tliat the sacred writers adopted the latter 
signification, and used the term in the sense of 
piiT'ify^ without any regard to the mode of 
doing it. 

In tlie second chapter, it w^as shown that th6 
design of baptism is not, as many suppose, to 
symbolize or commemorate the hurial and res- 
itrrection of Christ — that this is no part of its 
design ; nor was there any occasion for a sepa- 
rate ordinance to commemorate tliose events, 
since they were so closely connected with his 
death^ which is commemorated in the sacred Sup- 
per. Nor, again, is it the design of baptism, as 
was shown, to introduce the subjects of it into the 
spiritual fainihj of God^ and inaTte them parta- 
Tters of those spiritual graces lohich helong pecul- 
iarly to God\^ adopted children. 

But it was claimed that baptism with water 
is designed as a sign or tolttn of the covenant 
entered into between God and the baptized per- 
son, and to be the seal of that covenant — rati- 
fying the engagement, and standing as a perpet- 
ual witness to the obligation therein acknowl- 
edged ; also that it is designed to represent 



54 

internal purification from sin by the action of 
divine o;race, and to be the rite of initiation into 
the \ isible Churcli. 

AVa are now prepared to examine the question 
in the present chapter, What is the proper :mode 
ofhaptism^as a rite of the Christian Church? 

And here I take the position iliixt^any forrii 
of ceremonial purification icith loater^ when ad- 
"iuinistered hj an authorized p>erson to a proper 
suhject^ in the name of the Father^ and of the 
Son^ and of the Holy Ghost^ is valid Christian 
hapVism, This position would be readily ad- 
mitted by the great body of professed Christians 
throughout tlie world. But there is, as every 
one knows, a not inconsiderable and very re- 
spectable class of Christians, who contend that 
immersion is the only allowable or valid mode 
of administering Christian baptism. I liave 
no occasion or desire to dispute the validity of 
that mode ; but only to repel and disprove the 
assertion tliat the ordinance cannot be valid un- 
less administered in that way. If this assertion 
shall be sliown to be erroneous, then it Avill fol- 
low that otlier modes, as sprinkling or pouriug, 
may be lawfully adopted. My main attempt, 
therefore, in the present chapter, will be to 



ITS MODE. 00 



show that there is no scriptural authority for 
affirming that Christian baptism can be per- 
formed only by immersion. 

They who insist on immersion as the only true 
mode of baptism, usually do so under the belief 
that immerse^ and only iyywtlqv^q^ is what the 
word haptize means — that this is the essential 
idea of haptize- — that the Greek word from 
wliicli this is formed has no other signification ; — 
certainly not in relation to this ordinance of the 
Church. But we have seen that this is a total 
mistalvC. I feel assured that the unprejudiced 
reader, who has perused the first chapter of 
this book with care, so as fully to comprehend 
the argument, must perceive that the true 
scriptural idea of haptize i^ piorifij^ by whatever 
mode. The meaning of the word^ tlierefore", 
does not restrict us to any particular mode ; but 
leaves entirely open the question oiniode^ to be 
determined by other considei'ations. 

The next main reliance of our brethren vvdio 
contend for immersion exclusively, so far at least 
as I am acquainted, is on what they suppose to 
be %}ie example of Christ, And the sensitive 
conscience of the young convert is pressed with 
the imposing appeal to " follow the example of 



5G 

the Saviour," and l^e "buried witli Christ iu 
baptism." 

Now, there are three things whicli truth, as I 
think, requires to be said in regard to this mat- 
ter, and which give it a very different complex- 
ion from what it wears with the advocates of 
immersion. 

1. The Bible nowhere teaches that Christ w^as 
" buried in baptism." The nearest thing to it 
is where it says nothing about it ; viz. in those 
passages (Rom. 6: 4, and Col. 2: 12,) which 
were discussed in Chapter II. The apostle, it is 
true, teaches us, in these passages, that Chris- 
tians are, in their spiritual baptism, become 
dead and buried unto sin^ as Christ died and 
was buried on account of sin : and that, as Je- 
sus was raised from the dead, even so we also 
are risen with him to a new life of holiness. 
"For how shall we that are dead to sin live any 
longer therein ? " Hence we are said to be, in 
our baptism — ^^ meaning our spiritual purifica- 
tion — "buried with him," and "buried with 
him, by baptism, into death" — death to sin. 
But all this has noting to do with the Afatf^r 
baptism of Christ, or of believers in him. 

2. The baptism of Christ was not intended as 



ITS MODE, 57 

an example for our baptism, nor does it at all in- 
dicate the true mode of baptism in the Christian 
Churcli. We know it was not administered ac- 
cording to the instruction which he has given to 
the Churcli, because it was not administered 
"in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost." Christ was baptized by John 
the baptist, who did not administer the ordinance 
in the name of the Trinity, as appears in Acts 19 : 
2, where we are told of certain believers wdio 
had received John's baptism, but yet had never 
heard of the IIolj^ Ghost ; — a fact which could 
not have been, had they been baptized in his 
name. It is certain, then, that Christ did not 
intend the form and inanmr of his baptism as 
an example for us ; because it materially dif- 
fered in form from what he has commanded us 
— not being administered in the name of the 
Trinity. 

Nor, again, did he intend the fact of his bap- 
tism as an example for us ; and we are to be 
baptized, not because Christ was baptized, but 
because he has commanded us to be. The bap- 
tism of Christ was doubtless intended as a part 
of his external consecration to the priestly office, 
wliixjh he was then about to commence exerci* 



58 baptism; 

sing for men. lie had now reached the age of 
thirty years, as was required by the divine law^ 
before one shouhl enter npon the sacerdotal du- 
ties. He therefore came to Jolm, who was 
himself a priest, the son of Zacharias the priest, 
and demanded baptism, or the ceremonial puri- 
fication which the law required in the consecra- 
tion of priests. John was surprised, and hesi- 
tated to comply ; saying, " I have need to be 
baptized of thee ; and comest thou to me ? " 
Jesus replied, " Suffer it to be so now, for thus 
it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then 
he suffered him." But what demand of right- 
eousness required Jesus to be baptized ? It was 
not required to symbolize any professed repent- 
ance on his part, as in the case of others whom 
John baptized; for he had no sin, and needed 
no repentance, nor did he profess any. It could 
not, as in us, be intended to represent his spirit- 
ual purification by the Holy Gliost, for he was 
always spiritually pure. AVhat rigliteousness, 
then, did it becofne him to fulfil by baptism? 
Plainly, obedience to God's righteous hiw. He 
was now about to commence his services as a 
priest to instruct and atone for the people of 
God. And the law reqiiired that, qh ^entering 



ITS MODE. 69 

upon his office, the priest sliould be ceremoni- 
ally purified. And Christ would honor the law 
by submitting to the ceremony, and thus fore- 
stall the opposition of jealons and envious men. 
The advantage which this compliance with the 
law gave him was afterwards seen, (Matt. 21 : 
23-27,) when the chief priests and elders came 
to him, and demanded of him by what authority 
he instructed the people and performed his works 
of mercy. The reader will remember how thor- 
oughly he silenced them by referring them to 
the baptism of John, and asking them whether 
they acknowledged the divine authority of that. 
He knew they dared not deny it ; and yet, if 
they admitted it, they would thus be compelled 
to acknowledge the divine authority of his own 
sacerdotal acts ; because he could at once turn 
upon them and say, ' John, acting by divine 
authority, as you acknowledge, consecrated me 
to the priesthood of the Messiah ; so, there is my 
authority, at least sufficiently to answer you.' 

This, then, was the design of Christ's baptism 
— not to be an example for us, but to introduce 
him regularly to the priestly office. Whatever, 
therefore, was the jorm or 7node of his baptism, 
it is- not to ,be. urged as obliging us to be baptized 



60 

in the same way. Tlie baptism of the Christian 
church was instituted after that, and for an en- 
tirely different purpose. 

3. There is no evidence that Christ w^as bap- 
tized by immersion ; but rather that it was by 
sprinkling, or possibly by pouring. What, let 
me ask, is the argument by which men attempt 
to prove the immersion of Christ ? Apart from 
the meaning of the word haptwe, which, as to 
7node^ we have seen to be no evidence at all ; 
and those passages in Romans and Colossians, 
which, as we liave seen, do not touch the ques- 
tion ; I do not remember to have met with any 
other argument for Christ's immersion than such 
as I will now consider. 

(1.) In the language of our English transla- 
tion, after Christ was baptized in Jordan, he is 
said to have come " up out of the water." The 
supposed proof here is in the words " out ofP 
' Why should he be said to have come up out of 
the water, unless he had been immersed in the 
water? ' And, really, is there no other way of 
getting into the water, but to be immersed \i\\t'i 
and no other way by which one may come *' up 
out of the water," but by ascending from a total 
submarsion in it ? What if tliQ Bibl^ had distinct- 



ITS MODK. Gi 

ly said that John baptized hj sprinkling or pour- 
ing ; and that, for convenience and comfort in 
that iiot chmate, John stood at the margin of the 
water, with his face towards the stream ; and 
the mnltitudes passed around in front of him in 
single iile — thus stepping into the edge of the 
water — while he sprinkled, or poured from a 
cup, the water upon them ; and then, having 
been thus baptized, they passed on 'Vup out of 
the water " to the top of the bank : I ask. What 
if the Bible had described the mode of John's 
baptizing just in this manner? Would the ac- 
count of Christ's baptism, in that case, have re- 
quired the employment of diff'erent phraseology 
from what is actually employed ? Might it not 
have been said then, just as now, that " Jesus, 
when he was baptized, went up straightway out 
of the water ? " The reader may here see how 
much soundness of argument there is in suppo- 
sing that, because Christ came " up out of the 
water," he must certainly have been immersed ! 
It may not be amiss to add, that many remains 
of ancient sculpture represent John as baptizing 
in the very way v/liich 1 have here described. 
I do not say that this was the precise form, for 
we are not told how it was don^j but I do sa/ 



62 BAPTISM ; 

that tlie language of tlie sacred narrative is quite 
as favorable to such a form of baptism bj John as 
to immersion ; and it is mnch more probably 
true, for reasons which I will presently give. 

But it should not be omitted, that this argu- 
ment for Christ's immersion, drawn from the 
phrase " up out of the water," is j^eculiar to 
readers of the English Bible only. It is seldom, 
if ever, urged by one who reads the original 
Greek. Every such person knows there is 
nothing in it. The Greek word which is here 
translated ''out of" {aj^o) more properly signi- 
fies fro'in than out of^ and is more commonly so 
translated. If, in this place, the translation had' 
been made to read, '' Jesus, when he was bap- 
tized, went up straightway from the water," no 
one would ever have thought of calling it an in- 
correct rendering ; nor would any one, in that 
case, have thoui^ht of findino- here an aro-ument 
for Christ's immersion. The use of the words 
out of instead oi from proves nothing at all. 
* (2.) But Christ, it is said, was doubtless bap- 
tized in the same form as others in John's bap- 
tism; and if John did not baptize by immersion, 
why did he go to the river Jordan, and to '' Enon^. 
near tQ Salim, becaus.e. tker^ .was much water 



ITS MODE. 63 

tliere " ? I am very ready to admit that Clirist 
was probably baptized in the same form as oth- 
ers in John's baptism ; and yet I see no necessi- 
ty for supposing he v/as immersed, or that John 
immersed any one. The ministry of John was 
attended by vast multitudes, many of whom 
came from a great distance, and doubtless with 
their beasts of burden. And on the supposition 
that he baptized by sprinkling or pouring, it 
must have been very convenient, to say the 
least, to select a location where the immense 
throng, with all their beasts might be comfort- 
ably supplied with an article so necessary in a 
hot climate as water. This is certainly reason 
enough whyhe s'hould have selected such loca- 
tions, without supposing he baptized by immer- 
sion. ISTo argument, therefore, can be drawn^ 
from the fact that John selected such places for 
his baptizing, in favor of the idea that he im- 
mersed his disciples. The most that it would 
prove in that direction is, that he GO%dd have im- 
mersed if he had seen fit ; — at least, he had water 
enough. But it also proves as well, that he 
could have sprinldedoY poured ; and although, in 
that case, he might not have needed so much wa- 
ter for the administration- of baptism, yet he 



6-i BAPTISM ; 

would have needed it for the convenient accom- 
modation of the immense crowds of people, with 
their thirsty animals. 

. We have, tlien, no real evidence that John 
ever immersed any one. There is none in the 
meaning of the word haptize * there is none in 
the proper design of Christian baptism ; there is 
none in the language of our translation, stating 
that Jesus, when lie was bai^tized, " went up 
straightway out of the water ; " and there is 
none in tlie selection of Jordan and Enon as the 
places for administering his baptism. Not one 
of these things, as the reader must plainly per- 
ceive, affords the slightest evidence that he im- 
mersed, any more than that he sprinkled or 
poured. Not one of them makes it qyqw prohor 
hie that he employed immersion rather than 
sprinkling or pouring. Where, then, I ask, is 
the proof that Christ was baptized by immer- 
sion ? There is plainly none at all. And it is 
rjnazing, that good and sensible men can be so 
blind or so rash as to assume boldly that he loas 
immersed ; and then add to the assumption the 
monstrous untruth, that the young convert is 
required, in baptism, to "follow the example of 
the Saviour, and be buried in a watery grave ! " 



ITS MODE. 65 

But if I be asked whether there is anything, 
in the Scriptures to indicate the probable mode 
of Christ's baptism, I answer. To my own mind, 
there certainly is. I will present it, and the 
reader can allow it whatever weight he may 
think it entitled to. If the baptism of Christ 
was, as there seems no good reason to doubt, 
designed to be a part of his external consecra- 
tion to the priesthood of the Messiah, in honor 
of the divinely enacted statute, and 'thus it be- 
came him to fulfil all righteousness,' then we 
have instruction touching both the reason why 
he was baptized, and the mode of his baptism. 
By a reference to Exodus 29 : 4, the reader will 
see that the law re(][uired the priests to be washed 
or purified with water before entering on their 
priesthood. ''And Aaron and his sons thou 
shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle, and 
shalt w^ash tlieui with Avater." According!}^, 
when the Saviour was about to commence his 
public miuistrv, he wislied to honor this re(}uire- 
ment of tlie lavv^, and be washed, or puriiied. 
John was fully competent to do it, being him- 
self a Levite, the son of Zacharias. And there 
was a special fitness in the Saviours going to 
him; because he was the divinely • appointed 

5 



66 

forerunner of Christ, a propliet, and not excelled 
in greatness by any of woman born. Hence the 
Saviour went to him and demanded this cere- 
mony of the law. Kow, if we can ascertain in 
what manner this washing under the law was 
performed, it will be fair to infer that Christ 
was washed or purified in tlie same manner. 
As the Lord ^YOuld have it, we are not left 
wdioUy in the dark on this point. A little fur- 
ther along — in Numbers 8 : 7, the needed in- 
formation is found. In p-ivino; charo-e concern- 
ing the ceremony of washing or cleansing the 
Levites, the Lord says to Moses, ''And thus 
shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them ; 
SPRINKLE w^ater of purifying upon them." Is^ow, 
tell me if there is nothino* here to indicate the 
mode of Christ's baptism. Baptism, be it re- 
membered, is ceremonial purification. Christ 
would "fulfil all righteousness" by complying 
with this requirement of the law, when about to 
commence liis public ministry. The law de- 
manded that the priests, in their consecration, 
should be washed, cleansed, or ])iiriried with 
water. Accordingly Christ went to Jolm to be 
thus ceremonially cleansed; — in other words, 
to be baptized. But in what manner should it 



ITS MODE. 67 , 

be perfonned ? The law declares it shall be 
done by siyrinkling, I will leave the reader 
now to jndgc whether it is probable that Christ 
obeyed this instruction and was sprinkled, or 
whether he departed from it and was immersed. I 
am, however, free to declare it as my own solemn 
conviction, that Christ was baptized by sprink- 
ling. And yet I do not believe it affects the 
main question now before us in the least, 
whether he was baptized in the one way or the 
other. It is worth nothing at all in settling the 
question about the proper mode of baptism in 
the Christian Church. As I have before shown, 
the baptism of Christ was not intended to be an 
example for our baptism — it being performed 
for a purpose totally different from ours, and be- 
fore the baptism of the Christian Church was 
ijistituted. And I am accustomed to adminis- 
ter the ordinance by sprinkling, not because I 
believe Christ was sprinkled ; but because, in 
the absence of specific instruction on the sub- 
ject, I believe Christ has given his ministers the 
general con^mand to baptize ; while baptism is 
purification, and sprinkling is a mode of purifi- 
cation abundantly recognized in the Scriptures, 
and therefore valid. It is also convenient and 



68 liAPiisM ; 

safe in all countries, in all weatlier, and in all 
conditions of bodily health ; — wliicli can hardly 
be" said of baptism b}^ any other mode. 

We will now pass, and consider the case of 
the Ethiopian eimnch's baptism by Philip. It 
is by many confidently alhrnied that here was 
an instance of immersion, beyond any reasona- 
ble doubt. But much as I respect and esteem 
many of the men. who hold this opinion, I must 
confess that I am not able to awaken in mv own 
mind any very particular respect for the opin- 
ion itself. And yet, because so many embrace 
and teach it, it requires attention. The scene is 
described in Acts 8 : 38, 39. "And he com- 
manded the chariot to stand still. And they 
Avent down both into the water, both Philip and 
the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when 
they were come up out of the water, the Spirit 
of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch 
saw him no more." i^ow, the entire evidence 
of this man's having been baptized by immer- 
sion, and all that is urged by its strongest advo- 
cate:-, apart from the meaning of the w^ord haj)- 
the, is found in the fact of their leaving the 
chariot and stepping to the water, and in the 
use of the English prepositions iiito and out of. 



ITS MODE. 69 

First, it is said that '' a small quantity of water 
miirht easily liave been handed them, and tlie 
ordinance administered witliout the inconveni- 
ence of descending from the chariot, if a small 
quantity would have sufficed." So it might, 
imdoubtedly, if that had been deemed desirable ; 
for very probably there may have been, in the 
baggage of the eunuch, some vessel in which a 
servant could have dipped up and handed to 
the chariot as much water as would have suf- 
ficed for sprinkling or pouring. But would that 
have been the most natural way of proceeding? 
Surely the eunuch was not then in a state of 
mind to stand upon his dignity, and refuse to 
leave his carriage to receive the sacrament of 
baptism. And besides, after a long ride over a 
desert road, on arriving where was water, it 
would seem to be a not unpleasant relief to get 
upon the feet and step to the fountain or stream. 
If 1 had been in the place of Philip, with my 
present views and feelings, and he had desired 
me to baptize him, instead of having a servant 
get out a cup and hand up the water for me to 
baptize him sitting in his carriage, I would have 
had him get out, and, stepping with me down 
to the water^ there reverently stand or kneel be- 



70 BAPTISM ; 

fore God, witli liead uncovered, while I baptized 
liini " in the name of tlie Fatlier, and ot* the Son, 
and of tlie Holy Ghost." And just so, I doubt 
not, any Presbyterian minister would have done. 
Hence it is not so " unnatural " as some affirm, 
to suppose that, for the purpose of baptisn) by 
sprinkling or pourmg, he got out of his carriage, 
and received the ordinance in a reverential man- 
ner, rather than that he maintained his seat in 
the chariot, bolstered up by his dignity. How 
far, therefore, the circumstance of getting out of 
his carriage and stepping to tlie water goes to 
prove that he mast have heen itmnersed^ is a 
Question that I will not further pursue. 

But the main reliance, in this passage, by tho 
advocates of exclusive immersion, is on the prep- 
ositions " into " and '' out ofP It is said in the 
text that they both went down into the water; 
and after the baptism, they came up out of\\\Q, wa- 
ter, This is precisely parallel to what is said in. 
connection with Christ's baptism, and affords tho 
same sort of argument. "And Jesus, wlien he 
was paptized, went up straightway out of the 
water." And need I say again, that going into 
the water, and coming out of \\i^ water, do not 
necessarily imply a total immersion? Nothing 



ITS MODE. 71 

is proved by snch expressions. There is reason 
enongli why they may have stepped into tlie 
water, in that parchied and sultry region, witli 
only sandals on tlieir io^t^ for the pnrpc^se of 
baptism even by sprinkling or ponring ; witliout 
its being necessary to suppose that a total im- 
mersion was the object aimed at. There is no 
intimation of any disrobing, or changing of rai- 
ment on the occasion ; — a silence quite as sig- 
nificant against immersion, as going into and 
coming out of the vrater is in favor of it. But 
in ti'uth, there is no proof in either. And still 
more utterly destitute of force, if possible, are 
these prepositions, for the purpose of proving 
immersion, when we look at them in the lan- 
guage in wdiich Luke wrote them. I feel safe 
in saying that no reader of the Greek Testament, 
in private discussion with another wdio is known 
also to read it, w^ill ever have the effrontery to 
urge these expressions, '\into the water," and 
" out of the w^ater," as proof that the eunuch 
;was immersed. For the information of such of 
my readers as may need it, let me say that, 
when it is said they went down into the water, 
the Greek w^ord for iyito is eis ; and when it is 
^aid they came up out of the water, the Greek 



73 BAPTISM ; 

^'ord for met of is eJc, Now these words, eis 
and el\ are both extreiriely variable in their sig- 
nifications ; and if tlie translators had expressed 
eis l)y the English word io^ and ek by the Eng- 
lish word/*A>m, it would have been perfectly in 
accordance with the habitual meaning of these 
words ; and no one would then have thought of 
* doubting the accuracy of the translation any 
more than now. They often mean into and out 
of and they often mean to and from^ and they 
often have other meanings^according to the con- 
nection in which they stand. But supposing 
the translators had seen fit to express them by 
to and froin^ the passage would then have read 
as follows : " And they w^ent down both to the 
water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he bap- 
tized him. And when they were come up from 
the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away 
Philip that the eunuch saw him no more.'^ 
Who would ever liave quoted this as a proof 
text for immersion, if that had been the way it 
read ? And yet it would have been quite as 
true to the original as it is now. There is, then, 
plainly no proof at all in these words,respecting 
the mode of the eunuch's baptism. In order to 
show from this passage even a p^^c^ahHAty for 



ITS MODE. 73 

immersion in preference to any other mode, it 
needs to be shown that these terms must neces- 
sarily h^ translated hj into and out of — that, 
in such a connection, they can be rightly ex- 
pressed by nothing else. But it would be amu- 
sing to see a Greek scholar attempting this. 
Let me give some examples showing the use of 
tjiese prepositions by the inspired waiters. Take, 
in the first place, eis^ here translated into^ and 
see just how necessary it is that it should always 
be read into^ and nothing else. Matt. 12 : 41. 
" They repented eis the preaching of Jonah " — 
at the preaching — certainly not into the preach- 
ing of Jonah. Luke 11 : 49. " I will send eis 
them prophets and apostles" — I will send to 
them — not into them, prophets and apostles. 
John 11 : 38. '' Jesus therefore groaning within 
himself, cometli eis the grave " — to the grave — 
not into the grave. John 21 : 4. " Jesus stood 
eis the shore " — on the shore — not into the 
shore. These are only a few of the many exam- 
ples which might be given, showing how pre- 
posterous it is to suppose eis can mean nothing 
but intOj and that the passage could not be law- 
fully translated otherwise than it is. I have 
had the curiosity to count the nunxber of instan- 
r> 



74: BAFflSM ; 

ces in wliicli tlie preposition eis is used in this 
single cliapter containing the account of the eu- 
nuch's baptism; and to observe how, in each in- 
stance, it is translated in our English Bible. 
And what does the reader think is the result ? 
I find the word used m this chapter eleven times. 
Onceith translated into ; twice it h i?i ; once 
it is at / once it is with / once it is tmto / and 
FIVE TIMES it is TO. The single instance where 
it is rendered into is in the case of the eunuch's 
baptism. By what authority, then, does any 
one contend that this word eis must necessarily 
mean into rather than to; and upon this as- 
sumption that they y^Qwtinto the water, attempt 
to maintain that the eunuch was immersed? 
For my own part, I do not believe they stei)ped 
foot into the w^ater, unless it was for the comfort 
of the thing. The most fair and legitimate read- 
ing of the passage would be, " They went down 
both to the water." 

The same kind of reasoning might be had on 
the word elc^ here translated out of. With quite 
as much propriety might it have been rendered 
from^ and the passage have been made to read, 
''And when they w^ere come up from the 
water," &c. To show the reader that elc does 



ITS MODE. 75 

not necessarily always mean out of\ but may 
also mean from^ and that it might properly have 
been so rendered in this passage, I will only re- 
fer to two or three examples, taken from a mul- 
titude that might be given, wliere it must be 
translated yr^^m, and not out of, John 19 : 12. 
'^ And {elt) from thenceforth Pilate sought to re- 
lease him." Who would here say, ^ And out of 
thenceforth?' John 19: 23. '^ Now the coat 
was without seam, woven (el^) fT07)i the top 
throughout." Who would read it, ' woven out 
of the top throughout ? ' John 20 : 21. " The 
first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene 
early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, 
and seeth the stone taken av/ay {eh) from, the 
sepulchre." Who dare say it should read, 'out 
of i\iQ sepulchre,' when we know the stone was 
placed only at the door of the sepulchre ? Such 
examples may suffice to show the plain English 
scholar that, although eh is here translated out 
of it is not necessarily so; but might just as 
well and as truly have been rendered from as 
out of And I say again that, if the translators 
had made the passage read, '^ And they went 
down both to the w\ater, both Philip and the 
eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they 



76 BAPTISM ; 

were come up from the water, the Spirit of the 
Lord caught away Philip," it would have been 
quite as accurate a translation as it is now ; and 
hence there is not a particle of evidence in this 
passage that they even wet their feet. Where, 
then, is the proof, afforded by this example of 
Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, showing that 
immersion is the only valid mode of baptism ? 
In respect to the baptism of the three thou- 
sand on the day of Pentecost, mentioned in the 
second chapter of Acts, I do not deny that the 
apostles might possibly have accomplished it by 
immersion, if they had easy access to a sufficient 
jiumber of baths to keep them all emploj^ed, to- 
gether with all the conveniences which modern 
ingenuity has devised to facilitate the operation. 
But it should be remembered that it was al- 
ready about nine o'clock in the morning when 
Peter began his sermon. How long the dis- 
course with other exercises lasted, we do not 
know ; but it is doubtful if the baptizing com- 
menced much before noon. Then they must 
have baptized, on an average, two hundred and 
fifty persons each — a pretty large half-day's 
work, if it. was all done by immersion. But 
where did they get their conveniences for im- 



rr.A MODE. 77 

mersiiig so large a number? The little brook 
Kedroii did not accommodate them. This no 
one pietends. The public baths of the city were 
not likelj'to be open to them for such a purpose ; 
or if open, it is not probable that they could 
have occupied them unmolested — hated as was 
this sect by the great body of the inhabitants, 
as well as by the public authorities. And yet, 
if immersion was the way, with no previous ar- . 
rangements, (for all this was sudden, and unex- 
pected to every one,) they must all at once have 
found themselves in possession of pools or baths 
sufficient to enable twelve men to immerse each 
two hundred and fifty persons that very afternoon ; 
while the narrative does not intimate that they 
left the place where they were assembled. Now 
I put it to the reader's candor, Is this probable ? 
I do not say it 1$ impossible — there is no need 
of affirming that. But is it likely? And what 
would be gained, even by proving that the three 
thousand might all have b^en that day im- 
mersed ? It wopld only make the thing possi- 
hie ; while it would still he just as possible, and 
a great deal more prohahle^ that they were bap- 
tized in some other way. But let it be supposed 
that they were purified by sprinkling or pour- 



78 iiAPTr>M; 

ing, and the wliole transaction becomes perfect- 
ly easy and credible. So far, therefore, as this 
example throws any light* at all on the mode 
of baptism, it is in favor of sprinkling or pour- 
. ing rather than of immersion. 

The record of PauVs baptism, also, loohs^ to 
say the least, as if he were baptized in some 
simpler form than by immersion. It is in Acts 
9 : 17, 18. " And Ananias went his w^ay, and 
entered into the house ; and putting his hands 
on him, said. Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, 
that appeared unto thee in the way as thou 
camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive 
thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it 
had been scales ; and he received sight forth- 
with, and arose and was baptized." J^ow this 
certainly looks as if, immediately on receiving 
his sight, he arose from his seat or couch, and 
was baptized without leaving the room. But 
if so, is it not altogether more probable tliat he 
Avas purified by si3rinkling or pouring than by 
immersion? I do not aftirm that immersion in 
this case ^vas impossible. If the Bible explicitly 
taught that immersion was the only true and 
valid mode of baptism, I might conjecture ex- 



ITS MOY>K, 79 

pedients enough, perliaps, to make this account 
consistent with the idea of Paul's having been 
immersed. But as it is, why should w^e feel 
called upon to task our ingenuity in any such 
w^ay ? Why not take the narrative as it reads, 
and adopt the idea which lies on its face ? That 
idea, I hesitate not to say, is quite unfriendly to 
the doctrine of immersion ; but with sprinkling 
or pouring it is entirely harmonious. 

So in the case of the Philippian jailer, (x\cts 
16 : 23.) This man was convicted of sin in the 
night by the miraculous opening of the prison 
where Paul and Silas were confined ; and w^as 
immediately converted under their instruction ; 
and " the same hour of the night" was baptized. 
Tf ow, since the word haptize means in the Scrip- 
tures, neither immerse, sprinkle, or pour ; but 
purify : — and since there is nothing in the de- 
sign of tlie ordinance which requires immersion, 
wdiat is there, I ask, in this case of the jailer to 
indicate purification by immersion rather than 
by sprinkling or pouring ? There is no mention 
of river, pool, or bath, in the narrative — nothing 
which would lead us to suppose they left the 
prison walls; for it appears, from the account, 
that he did not even bring Paul and Silas into 



80 baptism; 

his house until after his baptism. If this had 
been a palace, it might be said there was proba- 
bly a bath connected with tlie establishment, 
where the immersion was had. But it was a 
heathen prison, and not therefore very likely to 
be supplied with such a luxury. I do not, in- 
deed, deny the ^possibility of there having been 
a bath at hand, and of the jailer and his family 
having been immersed. But since nothing about 
it is said in the narrative, does it look probable ? 
And even if there had been every possible con- 
venience for immersion ; and if these servants 
of God, whipped as they were only the day be- 
fore almost to death, had been in a bodily con- 
dition to admit of their immersing this family, 
it would still remain to be proved that they ac- 
tually did administer the ordinance by immer- 
sion, rather than by sprinkling or pouring. 
Such proof is nowhere to be found ; while all 
the circumstances just adverted to, favor the 
idea of sprinkling or pouring rather than of im- 
mersion. 

I will next observe, It is a ftict of no trifling 
importance in this dicussion, that the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost, of which water baptism is 
meant to be symbolical, is represented, never by 



nS MODK. 81 

immersion, but by poicring. The Spirit is said 
to be jpoured upon men. His divine influence 
is represented as coming dovjn on the subject 
whom he baptizes. 

Again, it is important to observe that the sac- 
rificial purification of the soul by the efiicacy of 
Christ's blood, which is also represented by 
water baptism, is expressed by sprinkling. In 
1 Pet. 1 : 2, believers are said to be '' elect . . 
unto obedience, and sPRmKLiNa of the blood of 
Jesus Christ." In Heb. 12 : 24, it is said, '^ We 
are come ... to the blood of sPEiNKLi^a, 
that speaketh better things than that of Abel." 
Heb. 10 : 22. ^' Having our hearts speinexed 
from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed 
with pure water:" — thus expressing both the 
internal purification with the blood of Christ, 
and the external purification with water. And 
since the internal purification is figuratively 
said to be by sprinTding^ it is fair to infer that 
the external washings or symbolical purifying, 
is by sprinkling also. 

Now, let me ask again, AVhere is the proof 
that immersion is the only valid mode of bap- 
tism ? It certainly is not in the meaning of the 
word haptize. In Chapter I, I have, as I think, 
D* 6 



82 BAPiis^t; 

fully proved l/ati to be, frequently^ at least, 
when used by the inspired writers, not immerse 
— not sprinkle — not pour; but xnirify^ having 
no regard to the mode. 

iSTor is the proof of immersion, as tlie only 
valid mode of baptism, to be found in any de- 
sign of the ordinance to represent the hurial and 
resurrection of Christ ; for I have, in Chapter 
II, shown that it has no such design ; and that 
all which is said by our brethren about being 
" buried with Christ in baptism," and " being 
buried with him, by baptism, into death ; " or 
being " planted in the likeness of his death ; " 
and about being '' also in the likeness of his re- 
surrection," when urged in support of this al- 
le«:ed desi<>:n of the ordinance, or of immersion 
as its only mode, is a mere begging of the ques- 
tion, but proving nothing. I have shown, as I 
believe unanswerably, that the passages of 
Scripture here alluded to, make no reference 
whatever to water baptism — either the baptism 
of Christ or of his Church ; — that it is entirely 

* See Dr. Edward Beeclier's book, entitled "Baptism, its 
Import and Modes," wliereiu the anthor demonstrates tliat 
the sacred writers use tlie word baptize, not only freqneuth', 
but always, in the sense of purify. 



ITS MODE. 88 

of spiritual baptism that tliey treat — - a baptism 
which produces death to sin and life to right- 
eousness. 

Nor, again, is there any proof of immersion 
in the terms employed to describe the baptism 
of Christ or the eunnch ; as going down into tlie 
water, and coming up out of the water. And 
besides, as it respects the baptism of Christ, I 
have shown, in the early part of this chapter, 
that, in whatever way it was administered, it 
was not meant to be an example for us ; but was 
intended for a totally different purpose, and oc- 
curred hefore the Saviour instituted the form of 
baptism for his Church. Hence believers are 
no more properly called upon to ''follow Christ 
in baptism " than to follow him in eating, drink- 
ing, and sleeping. Christ ate, drank, and slept ; 
and we too are to eat, drink, and sleep ; but not 
particularly because he did, or in imitation of 
his example. So Christ was baptized ; and we 
also ought to be baptized ; but not particularly 
because he was, or to imitate his example ; but 
because he has commanded it. The Saviour 
never meant his baptism to be any example for 
ours; although it was probably performed by 
sprinkling, and not by immersion. 



84 BAFnsM ; 

"Nor yet again, is the proof of immersion, as 
the only true mode, to be found in tlie cirGum- 
stances connected with any of tlie recorded ex- 
amples of baptism. There are no cases of bap- 
tism recorded in the I^ew Testament where cir- 
cumstances are mentioned which point more 
decidedly to immersion as the mode than those 
which I have considered; — none on which the 
advocates of immersion so much rely. And the 
reader can now judge whether, in either of these 
cases, the circumstances are such as to show that 
immersion, and nothing else, must have been the 
mode ; or whether they are such as give preference 
to some simpler mode, as sprinkling or pouring. 

And where, I once more ask, in all the word 
of God, is the proof that Christian baptism can 
be lawfully administered only by immersion ? 
There is none, I confidently declare to the en- 
quiring reader, there is none. And if the word 
of God furnishes no proof to this effect, who is 
authorized to set up this particular mode of bap- 
tism before tlie Church, and say, " This or 
nothing " ? Although I do not call in question 
the ability or honesty of the men who do it, yet 
I must question their prudence and accuracy ; 
and I covet not tlieir responsibility. 



TVS MODE. ' 85 

I am willing to acknowledge Immersion to be 
a valid mode of baptism ; yet not because it is' 
irriTnersion^ but because it is a mode of ceremo- 
nial purifiGCttion. And just so I regard sprinh- 
ling and pouring as valid modes of baptism ; not 
because they are sprinkling or pouring, but 
because they are authorized modes of ceremo- 
nial purijication. And since the great Head of 
the Church has not definitely taught us which 
of 'these modes we shall adopt — having only 
commanded us to purify or baptize, — every 
branch of the Church is clearly at liberty to 
elect its own mode ; though bound to respect 
the modes elected by others. And every be- 
liever may unite himself to the Church where 
he can receive the ordinance in that mode which 
best satisfies his own conscience ; and having 
done so, no one has any scriptural authority to 
deny the validity of his baptism. 



CHAPTER IV. 

IKFANT BAPTISM OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 

The Church was infested with many false 
prophets before the apostles were in their graves. 
To fortify her against their errors of doctrine 
and practice, was a prominent object contem- 
plated in the apostolic epistles. Their inspired 
authoi-s enjoin the strictest carefulness against 
the reception of error. Paul especially charges 
the Church to " prove all things." He would 
have Christians bring every religious doc- 
trine to the test of reason and the word of God ; 
and not feel themselves at liberty, on the one 
hand, to receive every thing whicli might be 
taught ; nor, on the other, to reject every thing 
that might be condemned. They were required 
to examine every religious topic with care, and 
\vhatever should abide the ordeal of sober rea- 
son and divine revelation, they were instructed 
to " hold fast," as " that which is good." 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDKREI). 87 

The same principle should govern the Church 
now. There is much diversity of doctrinal sen- 
timent abroad, whose abettors claim to be di- 
vinely taught. And no man is at liberty to take 
without examination whatever may be declared 
to be the word or the will of God. We cannot 
throw oft* the obligation to employ our own pow- 
ers in the investigation of truth and duty — to 
" prove all things," under the guidance of the 
Bible, and with such other helps as we can ob- 
tain. And w^hen, upon any point, we have once 
ascertained the truth, we must " hold it fast ; " 
and not suff*er it to be wrested from us, or our- 
selves to be drifted away from it, ''by every 
wind of doctrine " that blows. The doctrines of 
the Bible ought to be firmly rooted in our hearts 
and minds ; as they can be only by the labor 
of careful and prayerful research. 

These remarks are intended as preliminary to 
an application of their spirit to the doctrine of 
Infant Baptism ; the discussion of which I de- 
sign to open in the present chapter, by inquiring 
vj/iether the Seri-phtres contain anything adverse 
to infant hajjtisin. 

That there is any express prohibition of this 
practice in the Bible, is not pretended, even by 



88 INFANT r,Al'TISM ; 

those who most strenuously oppose it. The 
Scriptures nowliere contain such a prohibition. 
The argument against infant baptism, so far as 
it professes to be founded on the Scriptures, is 
obtai]ied wholly by implication and inference. 
And yet I would by no means object to it on 
this ground. If a doctrine, duty, or prohibition 
is fairly implied in any passage of Scripture, or 
derived by legitimate inference^ it is taught no 
less certainly and authoritatively than if it were 
directly affirmed; This must be so, if all the 
parts and forms of truth are consistent with 
each other. And, surely, no sound mind will 
deny that truth is harmonious throughout all 
its ramifications. If then, it can be shown, 
by any legitimate inference or implication, that 
the Scriptures discountenance infant baptism, 
we must accept it as divine authority against 
the practice. 

I am not aware of more than three forms in 
which the opposers of infant baptism have ever 
supposed it to be forbidden in the w^ord of God. 
These forms are the following. 

1. It is alleged that the Scriptures require 
faith and repentance as prerequisites to hap- 
tism; hut infants cannot repent and helieve f 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 89 

and lience, it is said^ tliey ought not to be bap- 
tized. 

2. It is affirmed that there is no direct and 
positive precept enjoining info/at 'baptism j and 
that hence it is unauthorized, and by silence 
forbidden. 

3. It is said that there is no clear and indis- 
putahle example of infant baptism recorded in 
the Scriptures * and that, consequently, we are 
not to believe it was practiced in the apostolic 
churches, especially since it is not expressly 
commanded. 

I believe this is a perfectly fair representation 
of all that the Bible is supposed to teach against 
the practice of infant baptism. 

I will, therefore, proceed to examine these 
several statements in their order. 

1. It is alleged tliat the Scriptures require 
faith and repentance as prerequisites to hap- 
tism^' hut infants camnot repent and helieve * 
and hence, it is said, they ought not to be bap- 
tized. 

But of whom, let me ask, do the Scriptures 
require faith and repentance in order to bap- 
tism ? Of adults? or of infants? or of both? 
Do they require these affections of adults f 



90 ikfa>:t HAini^M; 

Yes, and so do Presbyterians, and most otlier 
pedo-baptists. We never baptize adults, except 
on their profession of faith and repentance. But 
do the Scriptures require the same of infants? 
Certainly not, since they are incapable of faith 
and repentance. And neither do we, for the 
same reason. But do the Scriptures anywhere 
forbid baptism to infants on account of theii* 
being incaj^able of repentance and faith ? Xever, 
anywhere ; and neither do we. But do not the 
Scriptures teach that none should be baptized, 
excepting them who repent and believe ? No- 
where in the Bible is such a sentiment taught. 
The nearest thing to it which the Bible teaches 
is, that adiclt persons should believe and repent 
before being baptized. But surely this is a very 
different thing from teaching that no one^ adult 
or infant, must be baptized without having per- 
sonally repented and believed. The Bible teaches 
that adiClt persons must repent and believe in 
urder to be saved ; but tliis is a different matter 
from teaching that oio one^ adult or infant, can 
be saved without repentance and faith. The 
same is true in respect to baptism. 

When the baptism of adults is spoken of, it is 
commonly mentioned in connection with their 



OBJ J-:CT10NS CONBIDICKKI). 91 

faith or repentance ; as in Acts 2 : 38, 41 . '' Then 
Peter said unto tbem. Repent and be baptized, 
every one of yon, in tbe name of Jesus Christ, for 
the remission of sins. . . Then they that gladly 
received his word were baptized." Also in 
Acts 8 : 12. " But when they believed Philip 
preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were 
baptized, both men and women." Again in 
Acts 8 : 37, Philip replies to the eunuch when 
proposing to be baptized, ^'If thou believest 
w^ith all thine heart, thou may est." These and 
other similar passages show conclusively that, 
wdien adults are to be baptized, there must ba 
evidence, at least by their profession, that they 
have repentance toward God and faith in the 
Lord Jesus Christ. These passages, however, are 
often cited to show that none should be baptized 
except on a personal profession of their faith 
and repentance. But they prove no such thing. 
They speak only of adults, and make no allusion 
to the case of infants. They do not, therefore, 
touch the question whether infants, who cannot 
repent and believe, are. to be baptized. All 
these cases of baptism are precisely such as 
w-ould have occurred,in the same circumstances, 



92 INFAXT IJAPTIS>r ; 

if a modern Presbyterian minister had acted in 
the place of Peter or Philip. In every case of 
adult baptism, such as these passages refer to, 
we insist on repentance and faith in the subject. 
But the question about the baptism of infants is 
a totally difterent matte]*, and must be decided 
by other testimony, since this has no relation to 
the case. We know that, in the great Commis- 
sion, Christ says, '' lie that helievcth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved." And from this it is often 
argued that believing is required in order to 
baptism ; and that no exception is made in favor 
of infants. But I reply that, although no ex- 
ception in the case of infants is expressed, yet it 
is evidently implied^ and did not need to be ex- 
pressed ; because the Saviour speaks here of 
such as are capable of helieving^ and not of in- 
fants. 

But if any will have it that, because infants 
are not expressly excepted, therefore they are 
excluded from baptism, since tliey cannot be- 
lieve ; then I reply that, by the same rule of in- 
terpretation, infants are excluded from salvation, 
since they cannot believe ; for it is said in the 
very same breath, " He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth 



OBJiiCTIONS CONSIDERED. 93 

not sliall be damned." Now, how can one wlio 
maintains that, because infants cannot believe 
they must not be baptized, escape the parallel 
that, because infants cannot believe they must 
not be saved. Let the question be asked. Who 
are to be baptized ? and many of our brethren, 
reasoning from this passage, answer, " They 
who believe." But we ask them. Does that ex- 
clude infants from baptism ? " Yes," say they, 
"because infants do not believe." "Well, we 
advance a step further, and ask. Who are to be 
saved ? Our brethren must answer, " They who 
believe and are baptized." But we ask again, 
Does that exclude infants from salvation ? To 
be consistent w4th themselves, they must say, 
"Yes, because infants do not believe, and must 
not be baptized." Well, who shall be damned ? 
" They w^ho do not believe ; for Christ says, 
' He that believeth not shall be damned.' " But 
we ask, Does that include infants ? By the 
same sort of reasoning, the answer should be, 
" Yes, because infants do not believe." 

Now, I do not mean to insinuate that our 
brethren who differ from us on this subject really 
believe that infants are not saved. But to this 
sad conclusion we are inevitably forced by the 



94 INB^ANT BAPTISM ; 

argument which would exclude tlieni from bap- 
tism on the ground tliat they do not believe. 
But the truth is that, in this passage, infants are 
not referred to at all ; and it proves neither the 
one tiling nor the other, in relation to their bap- 
tism or their salvation. The Saviour here 
speaks only of adults, wdio are capable of be- 
lieving; and no more teaches that infants are 
not to be baptized, than he does that they are 
not to be saved. There is, therefore, no force 
whatever in any argument against infant bap- 
tism wdiich is grounded on those passages of 
Scripture wdiich speak of repentance and faith 
as necessary prerequisites to the ordinance. 
Those passages, I repeat, all refer to adults only 
— not to infants at all ; and if they prove that 
infants must not be baptized, they prove with 
equal certainty that they must all be damned. 
But of little children Christ has said, ^' Of such 
is the kingdom of heaven." 

2. It is affirmed that there is no direct and 
positive precept enjoining infant haptism * and 
that hence it is unauthorized, and b}^ silence for- 
bidden. But this argument is a bad one for tv/o 
reasons, as I will now endeavor to show\ 

(1.) It is bad because, if admitted, it would 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 95 

prove quite too rmich ; and therefore, in feet, it 
proves nothing. The argument is this: — Be- 
cause there is no express precept enjoining in- 
fant baptism, therefore infants mast not be bap- 
tized. It should be observed here, that they 
who nse this argument will admit no evidence 
obtained by inference, however fair; or by anal- 
ogy, however close; or by implication, however 
perfect. Nothing else than a positive precept^ 
enjoining the duty of baptizing the infants of be- 
lieving parents, or an indubitable example of such 
baptism, will satisfy them. If they would ac- 
cept proof in any other form, as by inferenoe^ or 
implication^ we could overwhelm them with it. 
But no : they must have precept and example, 
or nothing. And why so shut up to this partic- 
ular form of evidence? 'Because,' they say, 
' in a positive institittion^ such as baptism, every 
thing in relation to it must be expressly en- 
joined ; or a clear, unquestionable example 
must be given ; otherwise it can have no author- 
ity.' We will look at the matter of example a 
little further along. At present I wish to ex- 
amine this rigid claim for express precept, 
' Show us the Scripture precept enjoining it,' 
say our brethren of the other side, ' and then we 



96 INFANT baptism; 

will admit the validity of infant baptism ; but 
not till then.' "Well, if this is good reasoning 
on the subject of baptism^ it is equally so on the 
subject of the 6 W(?A(^W5^. The Lord's Supper is 
as truly a positive institution as baptism ; and 
if none may be admitted to baptism but such as 
are expressly declared to be entitled to it, then 
none may be admitted to the eucharistic sup- 
per but such as are expressly declared to be en- 
titled to it. And, arguing by this rule, we 
challenge the opposers of infant baptism to show 
their authority for admitting females to the 
Lord's table. On men it was enjoined, "Do 
this in remembrance of me ; " but nowhere in 
the Bible is this, or anything like it, enjoined 
expressly on women. I freely grant that the 
right of females to the Lord's Supper may be 
fairly inferred from several things ; — such as 
their being admitted to baptism, and member- 
ship in the Church ; and from their equal abil- 
ity with men to discern the Lord's body, and to 
profit by the ordinance ; and also from its being 
said in Gal. 3 : 28, " There is neither male nor 
female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." 
From these, and some other considerations, it is 
inferred^ and I think justly, that pious females 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 97 

have an equal right with pious men to the table 
of the Lord. But let it be remembered, this is 
an inference^ and not a positive precept. And 
they who can accept inferential proof in favor 
of female communion are bound to accept the 
same kind of proof in favor of infant baptism. 
The argument against infant baptism which is 
drawn from the absence of positive precept, is 
abandoned the moment you admit the validity 
of female communion, which has no positive 
precept to sustain it. And if inferential proof 
is good in its support, then the same kind of 
proof is equally good in support of infant bap- 
tism. And if the propriety of female commun- 
ion is not to be held in doubt on account of there 
being no express precept or command in its 
favor, since it can be fairly proved by infer- 
ence and analogy, then neither is the propriety 
of infant baptism to be held in doubt on account 
of there being no express precept or command 
in its favor, provided it can be fairly proved by 
inference and analogy. And this kind of proof 
I shall, as I trust, in due time, show to be abun- 
dant in favor of infant baptism. Whatever objec- 
tions, therefore, may be urged against the bap- 
tism of infants, let no one object to it on th^ 



98 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

ground that there is no express precept to sup- 
port it, or command enjoining it, until he is pre- 
pared also, and for the same reason, to object to 
females coming to the sacramental Supper. 

(2.) To deny the propriety of infant baptism on 
the ground that there is no express precept en- 
joining or authorizing it, is a bad argument, be- 
cause it assumes, contrary to fact, that a privi- 
lege M^hich God had once expressly conferred on 
the Church, and which had been enjoyed for 
many hundreds of years, and was never revoked, 
required to be expressly renewed, in order to 
retain its validity. It cannot be denied that the 
Church, under the patriarchal and Mosaic dis- 
pensations was expressly authorized to bring her 
infant ofispring into covenant with God, and to 
have the seal of the covenant affixed to them. 
That seal was circumcision. Under the Christian 
dispensation, although the covenant, as to its 
spiritual part, continues, (as I shall endeavor to 
show in the next chapter , ) yet the seal is 
changed from circumcision to baptism. But in 
this changing of the seal, there is nowhere any 
intimation that the j9(2r^^^5 interested in the cov- 
enant are to be changed — a thing which would 
require to be expressly stated, if any such 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 99 

change in the parties were intended. Under the 
former dispensation, believers with their infant 
oflspring were included in the covenant promise 
— ''I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after 
thee," and had the seal placed upon them. 
And unless the contrary is declared, believers 
with their infant offspring are still included in 
the covenant promise, and entitled to its seal. 
The privilege which had been granted to the 
infant seed of the Church must necessarily re- 
main until it is revoked. But nowhere in the 
Bible is there any intimation of this privilege 
being revoked ; — nowhere is it intimated that, 
under the gospel dispensation, the Church must 
leave her children out of covenant, and withhold 
from them the seal. And hence the quietude 
of the Jewish believers on this subject. They 
never uttered a word of complaint that, under 
the gospel,they were to be denied the privilege 
which, for so many ages they had enjoyed-— 
that of bringing their children with them into 
covenant relation to God ; as they certainly 
would have complained, if such had been the 
fact. There never was a people more distin- 
guished by any one trait of character than were 
the Jews by jealousy of their peculiar Church 



100 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

privileges. And it is utterly incredible that 
they should have remained silent, if so impor- 
tant an encroachment had been made on those 
privileges, as that of excluding their infant oflF- 
spring from the benefits of the covenant and its 
seal. But nowhere, either in the ]^ew Testa- 
ment or in any profane history, have we one 
word of complaint on this ground. And for the 
very good reason that no such ground of com- 
plaint existed. The Jewish converts were rec- 
ognized as members of the Christian Church, 
retaining their accustomed privilege in this re- 
spect, both for themselves and their children ; 
and there was no occasion for anything to be 
said on the subject. God had not revoked his 
covenant in relation to either adults or children ; 
and that covenant, it w^as understood, remained 
of course in full force. Only its outward seal 
was changed. But the new seal — baptism — 
would naturally be applied to adult believers 
and their infant seed, as circumcision had been. 
It needed no new announcement that the infants 
of believers should receive the seal of the cove- 
nant under the gospel. This followed as a mat- 
ter of course, unless it was forbidden. But it 
was never forbidden, and the Jewish convert 



UBJEOTIONS CONSIDERED. 101 

mig'ht well be silent. On the supposition, tliere- 
ibre, tliat baptism, under the gospel, ^'.^ to be ad- 
ministered to the infant offspring of believers, 
no express precept or warrant is to be looked 
for, or expected, in the New Testament. It w^as 
not at all needed. The w^arrant had long before 
been given in the command to iix the seal of 
the covenant on the children of the Church. 
Inasmuch as that command has never been re- 
voked, there was no occasion to repeat it in the 
iSTew Testament; and it still remains in full 
force. The argument, therefore, against infant 
baptism, which is founded on the absence of any 
express precept or command, is sheer sophism, 
entitled to no weight whatever in the decision 
of this question. 

3. It is said that there is no clear and indis- 
putable example of infant haptism recorded in 
the Scriptures ; and that, consequently, we are 
not to believe it was practiced in the apostolic 
churches, especially since it is not expressly 
commanded. This argument is as lame as the 
one last considered, and much in the same way. 
Wliat if there are no clear and indisputable ex- 
amples of infant baptism recorded in the Scrip- 
tures? Does it thence follow that no such ex- 



102 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

amples occurred ? Apply this rule to the subject 
of female communion. There are no clear and 
indisputable examples of women coming to the 
Lord's table recorded in the New Testament. 
Will our brethren thence infer that no such ex- 
amples occurred? Certainly not. And why 
not ? Because they can prove, by inference, by 
analogy, and by implication, that pious females 
Jian^e a right to the Communion Supper, and 
therefore doubtless enjoyed that right. But in 
the same way, by inference, by analogy, and 
by implication, we can prove, as I intend to do, 
that the infants of believers have a right to bap- 
tism, and therefore doubtless enjoyed that right. 
And if the want of a clear and explicit example 
of women's coming to the Lord's table consti- 
tutes no argument against the propriety of fe- 
male communion, then neither does the want 
of a clear and explicit example of infant bap- 
tism constitute any argument against the pro- 
priety of that practice. Female communion is 
not forhidden^ and neitlier is infant baptism; 
and the evidence which supports the one is of 
precisely the same nature as that which supports 
the other ; viz. inferential, analogical, and im- 
plied. But evidence afforded in this way, if it 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 103 

be fairly inferred, fairly analogous, or fairly im- 
plied, is just as good as evidence afforded by 
direct precept, or explicit example. It is deemed 
sufficient to. establish the authority of female 
communion ; and with the same propriety it 
should be deemed sufficient to establish the au- 
thority of infant baptism. 

But it should be remembered that it is not, 
and cannot be, proved that there are no exam- 
ples of infant baptism recorded in the New Tes- 
tament. There are several examples of house- 
hold haptism recorded ; and it can never be 
proved that infants were not included in more 
or less of those households. We admit, it is not 
certain that they were included ; but neither is 
it certain that they were not. The cases are 
recorded precisely as we might have expected 
them to be, on the supposition that infants were 
among them, and received the seal of the cove- 
nant along w^ith other members of the house- 
hold ; juvst as was the case when a family of 
heathen, including infants and adults, became 
converted and joined the Church under the for- 
mer dispensation. 

There is another important fact to be consid- 
ered in regard to this matter of New Testament 



104 

example. The ministers of Christ, whose labors 
are recorded in the New Testament, were called 
to preach mostly among those who had not be- 
fore received the gospel, or Christian baptism ; 
and their first and main business was, of course, 
to preach to adults ; and when they believed, to 
baptize them, and organize them into churches. 
They were necessarily baptized on the prof ession 
of their faith^ rather than in infancy ; because 
they had not had Christian parents to offer them in 
baptism while in infancy. It was with the apos- 
tles just as it is with our foreign missionaries on 
this subject. The first converts under their 
labors have been born, not of Christian, but of 
heathen parents, and of course were not bap- 
tized in infancy, but require the ordinance on 
the profession of their faith. So with the apos- 
tles. Their first converts were not born of 
Christian parents, but of heathen, or of Jews 
under the law ; and of course could not have 
been baptized in infancy. Hence it became 
necessary to baptize them on the profession of 
their faitli ; just as would have been done, if 
tliey had believed under the preaching of a mod- 
ern Presbyterian. And the fact of their baptism 
beino^ tluis recorded in connection with their 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDEKED. 105 

profession of faith does not in any way militate 
against the propriety of baptizing the children 
of believing parents. It does not touch the sub- 
ject. JSTor is it at all strange that no more 
should have been said, in such circumstances, 
on the subject of infant baptism ; or that, in 
their addresses to people so situated, they should 
have said, " Repent and be baptized ;" or " Be- 
lieve and be baptized." In preaching to unbap- 
tized adults, they could hardly have spoken in 
any other way. And the examples of baptism 
to be recorded in such circumstances would most 
naturally be those of adults rather than of infants, 
except as they baptized households; sincere 
nations were then for the first time receiving the 
gospel. 

But there is another phase to this argument 
respecting Scripture example which we have not 
yet considered. The labors of the apostles ex- 
tended through a period of hetwee?i thirty and 
forty years^ during which time many thousands 
believed, and were gathered into the Church. 
iSTow, it cannot be doubted that, during this peri- 
^ od, especially the latter part of it, many were con- 
verted and received into the Church who were 
born of Christian parents — -parents who had 



106 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

been among the earlie?" fruits of the apostles' 
ministry. But among all the examples of adult 
baptism mentioned in the ]^ew Testament, there 
is not one of a person who was born of Christian 
parents. Now, observe in what direction this 
fact testifies. Of all the descendants of Chris- 
tian parents, who were converted and receivcid 
into communion during tliat period of thirty odd 
years in which the apostles labored, not one case 
is mentioned where the subject was baptized on 
profession of his faith. Yet we dare not pre- 
sume that no such persons were converted in 
all that time. We know there w^ere some ; and, 
considerino* the remarkable success which at- 
tended the ministry of the apostles, we must be- 
lieve that many w^ere converted who were the 
children of believing parents. And why have 
we not an account of the baptism of some one 
or more of them ? If the apostles had been from 
the first in the habit of baptizing believei-s' 
households^ including the infant children, this 
will explain it. Those persons, having been 
baptized in infancy with the households to which 
they belonged, there was no occasion for fur- 
ther notice of their baptism. 

And certainly the fact that there is no specific 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1 07 

record of the baptism of sucli a person does not 
argue that these persons were not baptized at 
all. Neither does the fact that there is no spe- 
cific record of infant baptism argue that infants 
were not baptized at all. And from all that has 
been said on this point, I think the reader can- 
not fail to see that, before we can be justified 
in rejecting the baptism of infants on the ground 
of there being no record of such a case in the Bi- 
ble, we must be prepared, on the same ground, 
to reject female communion, and believe that 
all the children of Christian parents who grew 
lip and were converted during the ministry of 
the apostles, were received into the Church with- 
out ever being baptized at all. 

I have now done with the main arguments 
which are urged against infant baptism. So far 
as I know, they are all comprised in the three 
which have been considered, viz . 

1. The Scriptures require faith and repent- 
ance in order to baptism ; but infants cannot re- 
pent and believe, and therefore ought not to be 
baptized. 

2. There is no direct precept or command au- 
thorizing infant baptism. 

• 3. There is no clear and explicit example 



108 INFANT baptism; 

of infant baptism recorded in the New Testa- 
ment. 

Here, I believe, is the whole strength of the 
opposition, except what consists in objecting to 
OUT direct evidence in favor of the p^^actice. In 
respect to the first of these arguments, I have 
shown that it rests on a misapprehension of 
Scripture, in applying to all classes what is in- 
tended only for adults ; and that, on the suppo- 
sition that infants are included, it will prove that 
they must all be damned ; since, if only they 
who believe are to be baptized, then only they 
who believe and are baptized are to be saved, 
and they who do not believe shall be damned. 
In respect to the second of these arguments, 
that which is drawn from the absence of any 
. express command or precept in favor of infant 
baptism, I have shown that there was no occa- 
sion for such a precept in the New Testament 
to autliorize the practice, since it is only using 
a privilege which God had long before gi'anted 
to the Church, and had never recalled, viz. the 
privilei^e of bringing her infant offspring into 
covenant with God by fixing the seal of the cov- 
enant upon them. I have also shown that, if 
infants are to be refused baptism for want of aij 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 109 

express Bible precept, then females are to be 
refused the sacramental supper for the same 
reason ; and I might have added that, for the 
same reason, we should refuse to observe the 
first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, 
since there is no direct precept to justify it ; and 
we defend the practice only by inferential rea- 
soning, such as is employed to defend infant 
baptism and female communion. 

With respect to the third and last of these ar- 
guments, — - that which is drawn from the want 
of any explicit scriptural example of infant bap- 
tism, I have shown that, in the circumstances 
of the apostles, laboring, as they did, chiefly 
among people who had not before received the 
gospel, such examples are scarcely to be ex- 
pected, except as they baptized households. 
Further, I have shown that if infant baptism is 
to be rejected for want of explicit examples in 
the New Testament, then for the same reason, 
we must reject female communion, and believe 
that all the children of the Church^who grew up 
and were converted under the ministry of the 
apostles during a period of thirty odd years, 
were received into the Church without any bap- 
tism at all. 



110 INFANT BAPTISM. 

Now, I do not think my readers are quite pre- 
pared to believe that all who die in infancy are 
damned ; or that a privilege which God had 
once granted to the Church, and never recalled, 
became null on the introduction of the gospel, 
merely because it was not explicitly renewed ; 
or that pious females should be refused admis- 
sion to the sacramental supper ; or that tlie first 
day of the week should not be observed as the 
Christian Sabbath ; or that the converted chil- 
dren of Christian parents were received into the 
Church under the apostles unbaptized. But if 
we are not prepared to believe all this, then we 
must believe these arguments against infant bap- 
tism are good for nothing — mere sophisms, en- 
titled to no weight or confidence whatever ; and 
that consequently the Scriptures contain nothing 
adverse to this practice. 

In the next chapter I will call attention to 
some of the direct arguments in defence of in- 
fant baptism, — especially such as are drawn 
from the Abrahamic covenant. 



CHAPTER V. 

INFANT BAPTISM ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. 

In opening the discussion of infant haptism 
in the last chapter, I called attention to the ques- 
tion, whether the Scriptures contain or teach any 
thing adverse to the practice of baptizing the in- 
fants of believers. The evidence and arguments 
urged against this practice by its opponents were 
shown to be inappropriate and unsound ; and 
the conclusion was reached, (how satisfacto- 
rily, I leave the reader to judge,) that the Scrip- 
tures do not teach any thing adverse to this 
practice. 

I come now to the next thing contemplated, 
viz . to ascertain and exhibit what the Scriptures 
teach IN FAVOR of infant haptism^ especially in 
connection with the Abrahamic Covenant. And, 
as the basis of the discussion, I offer the follow- 
ing propositions. 

I. The Church of God was originally organ- 
ized under the covenant made with Abraham'. 



112 

II. In that covenant^ children were included 
with their parents^ and helj^ed to comjpose the 
Church. 

III. The Christian Church is that same Churqh 
continued^ only under another form of adminis- 
tration. 

IV. Believers in the Christian Church have 
the same interest in the main provision of the 
Abrahamic covenant as helievers in the Jewish 
Church had. That covenant is still in force. 

V. The Christian Church has the same privi- 
lege of includincj her infant offspring in the cov- 
enant as the Jewish Church had ', itnlessyby some 
new arrangement^ God has forhidden it. 

VI. The privilege of believing parents bring- 
ing their children with them^ into covenant with 
God^ and thus into the visible Church — and 
thatj too^ by the same ordinance which is ap- 
pointed for themselves^ has never been with- 
drawn / and therefore still remains. 

VII. The Jewish converts to Christianity never 
understood the Christian Church to exclude the 
children of believers. 

VIII. The unbelieving Jews never raised the 
objection against the Christian Church tliat they 
excluded their infant offspring. 



ABKAHAMIO COVENANT. 113 

IX. Bajptisiin is the only ordinance of initia- 
tion into the Chicrch under the gospel^ and the 
only seal or token of the covenant ; and hence he- 
longs to all who are the proj>er subjects of church- 
raemhershvjp. It belongs^ therefore^ to believing 
poivents and their infant seed. 

To the establishment of these propositions 1 
will now direct my endeavors. 

I. The Church of God was originally organ- 
ized under the covenant which the Lord made 
with Ahraham, That covenant I will here tran- 
scribe. Gen. 17 : 1-14. '^ And when Abram w^as 
ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to 
Abram, and said unto him, 1 am the Almighty 
God ; walk before me and be thou perfect. And 
1 will make my covenant between me and thee, 
and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram 
fell on his face : and God talked with him, say- 
ing, As for me, behold, my covenant is with 
thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 
iN'either shall thy name any more be called 
Abram ; \^\\i thy name shall be Abraham ; for a 
father of many nations have I made thee. And 
I wdll make thee exceeding fruitful, and I w411 
make nations of thee ; and kings shall come out 
of thee. And I will establish my covenant be- 

8 



114 INFANT BAPTISM, 

tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in 
their generations, for an everlasting covenant; 
to be a God unto thee, and to tliy seed after thee. 
And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after 
thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, — all 
the land of Canaan, for an everlasting posses- 
sion ; and I will he their God. And God said 
unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant 
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their 
generations. This is my covenant, which ye 
shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed 
after thee ; Every man-child among you shall be 
circumcised. ^ And ye shall circumcise the flesh 
of your foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the 
covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is 
eight days old shall be circumcised among you, 
every man-child in your generations, he that is 
born in the house, or bought with money of any 
stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is 
born in thy house, and he that is bought with 
thy money, must needs be circumcised : and my 
covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlast- 
ing covenant. And the uncircumcised man- 
child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circum- 

* In this arrangement, females were reckoned in the males, 
and therefore needed no personal seal. 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 115 

cised, that sonl shall be cut off from his people ; 
he hath broken my covenant." 

Previously to the date of this covenant, as ev- 
ery attentive reader of the Bible knows, .the 
worship of God was maintained only by isolated 
persons, here and there, scattered amid the. pre- 
vailing irreligion or idolatry ; and having no 
organization or concert, and no systematic means 
of perpetuating a pure faith. The consequence 
was, that, for the second time, true religion had 
become well-nigh obliterated from the earth. 
But God had determined now to establish a sys- 
tematic plan for maintaining religion among 
men; — a plan by which his own worshipers 
should combine their influence, and secure to 
successive generations a pious training from in- 
fancy. He therefore proceeded to organize in 
the family of Abraham a regular Church, with 
covenant and ordinance. The Scripture account 
of this transaction, the reader has just seen. It 
may be paraphased and amplified as follows : — 

' Behold, Abram, I have called thee out from 
thy native Ur of the Ohaldees, and separated 
thee from thy father's house, and promised to 
make thee the father of a very numerous pos- 
terity ; and I have appropriated to thy posterity 



lie INFANT baptism; 

this land of Canaan wherein thou now dwellest ; 
and I have also promised that in thy seed all the 
families of the earth shall be blessed. I will 
now reveal to thee more fully what is my pur- 
pose in all this. And first, I will repeat what I 
have heretofore promised, that thou shalt be the 
father of many nations, and of kings ; on which 
account thy name shall now be changed from 
Abram to Abraham, which signifies, father of 
a great onidtititde. This multiplication of thy 
seed shall be true literally ; and it shall also be 
true in a more important and spiritual sense, 
wdiich will be better understood hereafter. 

' But my object in these arrangements is to 
provide for the maintenance of true religion 
among men. I will therefore organize a Church 
in thy family, to be perpetuated in thy seed — • 
literal and spiritual; — a Church which shall 
worship me, the only true God. And I will now 
establish my covenant with thee, and with thy 
seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant. 
And these shall be the terins of this coveuiint. 
On your part, it shall be required that ye wor- 
ship me alone as God, and maintain a holy life. 
Go not after other gods, and beware of every 
wickedness. Walk before me, and be thou per- 



ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 117 

feet. And, on my part^I promise that I will be 
a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. The 
nations around thee are vainly trusting to idol 
gods, which cannot profit them ; but / will be 
thy God, and the God of thy seed. Thus, there- 
fore, do I now establish my covenant between 
me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God 
to thee, and to thy seed after thee. And this is 
the token and seal of the covenant between me 
and you, which ye shall keep and use, viz . Thou 
shalt be circumcised; and every man-child 
among you shall be circumcised. And the un- 
circumcised man-child shall be cut off from his 
people. He shall be rejected from the privi- 
leges of the Church, and have no interest in the 
covenant promise.' 

After the estaLiishment of this covenant, 
Abraham was forthwith circumcised, and every 
male person in his household. Thus was the 
Church organized, having the covenant of God 
for its constitution, and the ordinance of circum- 
cision for its seal. 

Nothing, I think, can be more manifest, than 
that the grand design in all this was to provide 
an agency for resisting the tide of wickedness, 
and establishing righteousness on the earth, by 



118 iNFxVNT baptism; 

raising up a multitude of pious worshipers of 
the true God. For this purpose the land of 
Canaan was given thein, that they might be 
kept separate from the idolatrous nations about 
them, and not be contaminated by their per- 
nicious example or influence. And in accord- 
ance with this grand design, it was promised to 
Abraham that his seed should be amazingly nu- 
merous. But the gist of the w^iole, and that for 
which all the rest was given, consisted in the 
promise, '' I will be a God to thee, and to thy 
sei:d after thee." It w^as this w^liich secured 
true religion among them, and distinguished 
them from the idolatrous world. This promise 
conveyed to Abraham and his seed all the spirit- 
ual blessings of the Church, It is this promise 
which God calls, by w^ay of eminence, his '' cove- 
nant^'^ and w^hich he establishes in the line of 
Isaac, in distinction from the other children of 
Abraham, as mentioned a little further on, in 
the 21st verse. He engages tliat Ishmael shall 
be made a great nation ; '' but," says he, " my 
covenant will I establish with Isaac." It is this 
wdiich the apostle Paul refers to as " the vrora- 
ise^^^ when he says that believers in the Gentile 
Church, being Christ's, are '' Abraham's seed, 



ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. 119 

and heirs according to the jproinisey Gal. 3 : 
29. This spiritual promise — "I will be a God 
to thee, and to thy seed after thee," is, therefore, 
the constitution of the Church — the covenant 
of God under which she is organized. From 
the date of this covenant, the people of God 
have had a visible distinction from the men of 
the world, being an organized community by 
themselves. To this community, as it existed 
in the time of Moses, the martyr Stephen refers, 
and calls it '' the Church in the wilderness." 
Acts 7 : 38. This was the Church of God— the 
community of true worshipers, which has been 
perpetuated to the present day, and will exist 
to the end of time. From these considerations, 
I think it must be sufficiently plain that the 
Church of God was originally organized under 
the covenant m^ade with Abraham, 

II. In that covenant^ children were included 
with their parents^ and helped to compose the 
Church, Circumcision being appointed as the 
token or seal of the covenant, all were necessa- 
rily included in the covenant to w^hom the seal 
was orderly applied. Not only did A-braham 
receive the seal, but also the children of his 
household. And ever afterwards, when one 



120 INFANT baptism; 

from among the other nations became a prose- 
lyte to the Jewish faith/^ he receiv^ed circum- 
cision himself, and also the male children of 
his family. In this way, he and his house- 
hold became members of the visible Church. 
They thereby came under covenant obligation, 
along with the natural seed of Abraham, to 
' walk before God and be perfect ; ' and were 
entitled to the benefits of the promise, " I 
w^ill be a God to thee, and to thy seed after 
thee." The introduction of the children of be- 
lievers into the covenant by the application of 
the seal to them was by special divine injunc- 
tion ; and the man-child who was not circum- 
cised w^as treated as an ofi'ender, and rejected 
from the Church and all the spiritual privileges 
of the covenant promise. " He shall be cut off 
from his people," says God ; " he hath broken 
mj^ covenant." It cannot, therefore, be denied, 
and it is not disputed, that the children of be- 
lievers were originally embraced in the covenant 
of God, as being included in the Church, and 
having the initiatory seal or token placed upon 
them. 

*That is, a "proselyte of righteousness ; *' and not merely 
a " proselyte of the gate." 



ABEAIIAMIC COVENANT. 121 

III. My next position is that, the Christian 
Chxircli is this same Church continued^ only un- 
der another form of administration. This is 
demonstrated by the apostle Paul, in the elev- 
enth chapter of Romans ; where, in allusion to 
what is said in Jer. 11 : 16, he represents the 
Jewish nation, which was constituted the visi- 
ble Church of God by virtue of the covenant 
made with Abraham, under the figure of an 
olive tree, of which Abraliam was the root, and 
his descendants by Isaac the branches. The 
passage in Jeremiah is prophetic, and is as fol- 
lows : — ''The Lord called thy name, A green 
OLIVE TREE, fair and of goodly fruit. With the 
noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon 
it, and the branches of it are broken. For the 
Lord of hosts that planted thee hath pronounced 
evil against thee, for the evil of the house of 
Israel, and of the house of Judah, which they 
have done against themselves, to provoke me 
to anger." Now, in direct allusion to this 
prophecy of Jeremiah, and as if to show its ful- 
filment, the apostle, when speaking of the unbe- 
lieving Jews being thrust out of the v^ible 
Church, represents them as the natural branches 
of the olive tree broken off for their unbelief; 
F 



122 

while tlie believing Gentiles, taken from a wild 
stock, are grafted into the good olive tree ; 
that is to say, are incorporated into the visible 
Church, and permitted to partake of the bles- 
sings of the Abrahamic covenant. " And if," 
says he, addressing the Gentile believers in a 
strain of admonition and warning, — " And if 
some of the branches be broken off*, and thou, 
being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among 
them, and with them partakest of the root and 
fatness of the olive tree," [partakest, with the 
believing Jews, of all the privileges of God's 
covenant and Cliurch,] " boast not against the 
branches;" — meaning the hi^ohen-^off hranches. 
'' But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, 
but the root thee." [If you do boast, remember 
that you have not conveyed Church privileges 
to Abraham and his posterity ; but the covenant 
was made with Abraham and his seed ; and 
they have been the means of opening the priv- 
ileges of the Church to you.] " Thou wilt say, 
then. The branches were broken off" that I miglit 
be grafted in." ['The natural branches, the 
Jews, were broken off* — cast out of the Clmrch 
— that we Christian Gentiles might be admit- 
ted in.'] " Well," says Paul, " because of un- 



ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 123 

belief they were broken oif; and tlioii standest 
by feith. Be not liigli-niinded, but fear. For 
if God spared not the natural branches, take 
heed lest he alsv) spare not thee. Behold, there- 
fore, the goodness and severity of God; — on 
them which fell, severity ; but towards thee 
goodness, if thou continue in his goodness ; oth- 
erwise thou also shalt be cut off" — [cut ofi' 
from this same good olive tree, the Church of 
God, from which the Jews for unbelief were 
broken off; and into which you Gentiles have 
been grafted.] " And they also, [the Jews,] if 
they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted 
in : for God is able to graft them in again : " — 
[into the same olive tree, or Church from which 
they w^ere broken off.] " For if thou wert cut 
out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, [they 
had been brought out of heathenism,] and wert 
grafted contrary to nature into a good olive 
tree, — [the Church of God,] — how^ much more 
shall these [Jews] wdiich be the natural branches, 
be grafted into their own olive tree : " — [their 
own Church.] 

ISrow,wdiat can be plainer than all this ? Here 
the apostle, in imitation of Jeremiah, speaks of 
the Jewish Church under the figure of a good 



124 

olive tree, of wlilcli Abraham is called '' the 
root," because the Church, as an organized coni- 
miniitj, began with him ; and tlie covenant, as tlie 
constitution of the Church, Avas made Avitli him. 
Of this Church, founded by God in the family 
of Abraham, the Jews were the natural mem- 
bers. They were 'Uhe natural branches" of 
the "olive tree." But when they refused to re- 
ceive Christ as the promised Messiah and Head 
of the Church ; or to believe in him as the Son 
of God and Saviour of men ; they were, for their 
unbelief, rejected from the visible Church, and 
the blessings of God's covenant; — they were 
" broken ofi*" from the olive tree. This was 
true of the mass of the nation. There were, 
however, many exceptions. Many of the Jews 
believed in Christ, and were permitted to retain 
their place in the true Church, and still enjoy 
the privilege of that sacred covenant, "I will be 
a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee." They 
remained in their own ''good olive tree," as 
green and fruitfLil branches; while the unbeliev- 
ing Jews were broken off. Into this same olive 
tree the Gentile converts to Christianity were 
grafted. The old tree was not broken down and 
destroyed, and a new one planted in its stead. 



ABHAilAMIO COVENANT. 125 

The old CIrarcii, with lier precious spiritual cov- 
enant, was not bn.)keii down and abolished. She 
btill remained, a good olive tree ; and the Gentile 
converts to the Christian faith were grafted into 
her ; and, along with believing Jews, were per- 
mitted to ''partake of the root and fatness of the 
olive " — were allowed to sliare in the blessings 
of tiie covenant made with Abraham, and enjoy 
all the spiritual privileges of tlie Church. The 
idea, therefore, that the Jewish Church was 
abolished, and tliat the Christian Church is a 
new institution, is altogether a mistake. The 
Christian Cliurch is but a continuation of the 
Jewish Church — the same good olive tree; ex- 
cept that most of the original branches have 
been removed, and others have been grafted in. 
But still, some of the natural branches remain ; 
and as fast as the Jews are converted to Christ, 
they are grafted back ''into their own olive tree." 
The Church is one ; as Christ, speaking of the 
Church in. the Song of Solomon, says, " My dove, 
my undefiled, is but one." The tree is the same ; 
its root and its trunk continue the same ; and it 
is nourished and supported by the same gracious 
covenant, '■ I will be a God to thee and to thy 
seed after thee." 



126 INFANT BxVPTISM; 

It is true, tlie Church is under a diTferent form 
of administration from wliat she was before the 
deatli of Clirist. Iler sacraments liave, by ex- 
press divine authority, been changed, agreeably 
to her changed condition and circumstances. 
And many of her ceremonies have been abol- 
islied by the same express autliority ; . because 
the purposes for which they were instituted liave 
been accomplislied, and the occasion for them 
does not now exist. But this change in tlie ex- 
ternal polity of the Church is a very different 
thing from the annihilation of one Church, and 
the institution of another. Nor does a change 
in the outward ceremonies of the Church involve 
any change in the rights and privileges of mem- 
bership. The same pei*sons who were entitled to 
membership, and the benefits of the covenant, 
before the ceremonial law was abrogated, are 
entitled to these privileges now, unless excluded 
by express divine authority. 

If any thing more w^ere wanting to show the 
identity of the Jewish Church, organized under 
the Abrahamic covenant, and the Christian 
Church that now is, it might be found in that 
remark of Christ to the Jews in Matt. 21 : 43. 
" Therefore say I unto you. The kingdom of God 



ABRAHAMIO COVENANT. 127 

shall be taken from j^ou, and given to a nation 
bringing forth the fruits thereof." By " the 
kingdom of God," here, is evidently intended, 
the visible Church, in which God reigns the ac- 
knowledged King. Agreeably to this declara- 
tion, the privileges of the Church were, infact^ 
taken from the Jews, and given to the believing 
Gentiles. The Je^ys, for many ages, had been in 
almost exclusive possession of the Church, with 
the ordinances of religion. But, as a nation, 
they did not yield to God the appropriate fruits 
of religion, and were rejected for their stubborn 
imbelief. The visible Church — God's kingdom 
on earth — with covenant and ordinance, which 
had so long been confined almost entirely to 
them, was taken from them, and is now in the 
possession of Gentiles, who bring forth more ap- 
propriate fruits. But the Christian Church 
among the Gentiles is the same Church — the 
same spiritual kingdom of God — which was ta- 
ken from the Jews, and which, in an organized 
form, began with Abraham. 

It would probably be superfluous to argue this 
point further. I am sure it must be evident to 
every attentive and unprejudiced reader, that 
the Jewish Church was not abolished on the in^ 



128 

troduction of tlie gospel ; nor was tlie Cliristian 
Ctiurcli then founded as a new and separate in- 
stitution ; but that the Christian Church of the 
present day is, in the mind of God, a continua- 
tion, under a changed exterior, of that same 
Church which had its commencement in the 
household of Abraham. 

lY. I propose next, to show that helievers in 
the Christian Church have the same interest in 
the main provision of the Ahrahamic covenant 
as helievers i?i the Jeivish Church had. By the 
main provision I mean the spiritual promise, ''I 
will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after 
thee ; " with the obligation on their part to main- 
tain holiness of life, as expressed by the com- 
mand, " Walk before me, and be thou perfect." 
The promise of Canaan was merely an ai)pendage 
to the covenant, — an incidental thing, to provide 
a resting place for the Church, and save her from 
contamination, by keeping her separate from tlie 
idolatrous world around. As tlie main ol)jectof 
God in organizing the Church ap[)ears to have 
been, to raise nj) a people for his own v)orship 
and service^ in whom the purity and power of 
true religion might be exemplified; so the main 
thing in the covenant was that spiritual prom- 



ABRAHAMIC COYENAKT. 129 

isc, " I will be a God to tliee, and to tliy seed 
after thee." And in this covenant promise, I 
say, believers in the Christian Church have the 
same interest as believers nnder the former dis- 
pensation had. The covenant is still in full 
force; — as much so as at anytime after the 
days of Abraham. This indeed follows necessa- 
rily, if the Church is the same. But we are not 
.^eft to gather it by such an inference. "We have 
apostolic testimony to the fact. In the third 
chapter of Galatians, the apostle Paul has the 
following reasoning on the subject. '' Christ 
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, be- 
ing made a curse for us ; . . . that the bles- 
sing of Abraliam might come on the Gentiles 
through Jesus Christ." If we had not been re- 
deemed from the curse of the law, we must all 
have perished in our sins. But Christ hath re- 
deemed us, in order that '^ the blessing of Abra- 
ham" — that is to say, the blessing promised- in 
the covenant with Abraham — might come on 
the Gentiles as well as the Jews, by virtue of 
our union to Christ tlirouo-li faith. For .the 
promises were made, not so much to the natural 
descendants of Abraham, as to Christ in behalf 
of believers who exercise the faith of Abraham. 
F* 9 



130 INP-AXT J5APTISM ; 

" Now," says Paul, in the cliapter above referred 
to, — "Now, to Abraham and liis seed were the 
promises made. lie saith not, And to seeds, as 
of MANY," viz. Abraham's natural descendants ; 
" but as of ONE, And to thy seed, which is 
Christ." To Christ, as tlie representative of his 
people, who possess the faith o£ Abraham, were 
the promises made. '' And this I say, that the 
COVENANT, which was confirmed before of God 
in Christ, [confirmed to believers, in the person 
of Christ,] the law which was four hundred and 
thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should 
make the promise of none effect." The ceremo- 
nial law, which was abrogated at the death of 
Christ, was not given until centuries after this 
covenant was made with Abraham. How 
then, the apostle's reasoning asks, could the ab- 
rogation of the law disannul the covenant, or 
impair the efficacy of the promise, since tlie 
covenant was in. no way dependent on the cere- 
monial law, but existed hundreds of years be- 
fore the law was given ? Here is an argument 
constructed by the apostle on purpose to prove 
that the Abrahamic covenant is not done away, 
but is yet in full force in the Christian Church. 
And he concludes the argument by saying, 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 131 

" And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
seed, and heirs, according to the promise." ' As 
if he had said, If you are Christians, then you 
are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and heirs of 
the blessing promised in the covenant, '' I will 
be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee." 
You are members of the same Church, and en- 
titled to the same covenant privileges, as were 
the direct descendants of Abraham, who be- 
lieved. This argument of the apostle, I think, 
ought to be sufficient to satisfy us, not only that 
the visible Church now is the same as that which 
was organized in tlie family of Abraham, but 
that the covenant made with x\braham is still in 
full force, as the basis or constitution of the 
Church. And hence, of course, the Christian 
Church has now the same kind of interest in the 
spiritual promise of the Abrahamic covenant as 
the Jewish Church had. 

There is a passage in the eighth chapter of 
Hebrews which, at first sight, may seem to con- 
flict with this view ; but, when more particularly 
examined, is found to confirm it. The passage 
is as follows : " But now hath he [Christ] ob- 
tained a more excellent ministry [than the 
Aaronic priesthood,] by how much also he is the 



132 

mediator of a better covenant, wliicli was estab- 
lished upon better promises. For if that first 
covenant had been faultless, thensliould noplace 
have been sought for the second. For, finding 
fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, 
saith the Lord, when I will make a new cov- 
enant with the house of Israel and with tlie 
house of Judah : not according to the covenant 
that I made with their fathers in the day when 
I took them by the hand to lead them out of the 
land of Egypt ; because they continued not in 
my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the 
Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make 
with the house of Israel after those days, saith 
the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, 
and write them in their hearts : and I will be to 
them a God, and they shall be to me a people; 
and they shall not teach every man his neigh- 
bor, and every man liis brother, saying. Know 
the Lord ; for all shall know me, from the least 
to the grea e,^' . For I will be merciful to their 
unrighteousness, and their sins, and their iniqui- 
ties will I remember no more. In that he saith, 
Anew covenant, he hath made the fii*st old. 
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is 
ready to vanish away." 



1 



ABEAHAMIC C0VI:NANT. 133 

A liastj reading of tliis passage may lead 
some to suppose that the Abrahamic covenant 
cannot now be in force ; because that which is 
here called ''the first covenant" is represented 
as ''old," and "vanishing away;" aiul ex- 
changed for " a new and better covenant, estab 
lislied on better promises," and having Christ 
for its minister. But a little attention will clear 
up this matter, and show with which of these 
two covenants, if either, the Abrahamic cove- 
nant is identified. It is certain that by "the 
first covenant," here called " old," is not meant 
the Abrahamic covenant, but that of the Mosaic 
ritual, or covenant given on Mount Sinai. God 
calls it, "The covenant which I made with their 
fathers in tlie day when I took them by the hand 
to lead them out of the land of Egypt." And in 
the next chapter, this same "first " or " old " 
covenant is described with the taoernade^ the 
candlesticlx^^ the shew-hread^ the holy of holies^ 
the golden censer^ the arlc of the covenant^ the pot 
of manna^ Aaro^ris rod^ the ttibles of the law^ the 
cheruhim of glory ^ and the raeTcy-seat * all of 
vrhich identify it as the Mosaic covenant, and 
not the Abrahamic. But that which is liere in- 
troduced as '^ a new covenant" is plainly a new 



134 INFANT liAPTISM ; 

edition of the Abrahamic covenant. It is called 
" new," because it was such to the minds of the 
Hebrews at that time. For ages, they had been 
accustomed to regard chiefly the Mosaic cove- 
nant — the law of ceremonial observances. This 
was to their minds '' the old covenant." And 
when the spiritual and gospel-like provisions of 
the Abrahamic covenant were renewedly pre- 
sented before them as objects of promise, the 
covenant containing them, though actually da- 
ting back some hundreds of years earlier than 
the other, was to tliern appropriately styled '^ a 
new covenant." That the new covenant here 
spoken of is really intended as a renewed ex- 
pression of the covenant with Abraham, espe- 
cially the spiritual part of it, is evident from the 
fact that their provisions are the same, and their 
language is the same, except that the former is 
more amplified. Look at it again. " For this 
is the covenant that I will make with the house 
of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord ; I will 
put my laws into their mind, and write them in 
their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and 

THEY SHALL BE TO ME A PEOPLE. And tlicy sliall 

not teach every man his neighbor, and every 
man his brother, saying, Know ye the Lord ; 



ABRAHAMIO COVENANT. 135 

for all shall know me, from the least to the great- 
est. For I will be merciful to their unright- 
eoiisness, and their sins and their iniquities will 
I remember no more.'' In this covenant, God, 
by the propliet Jeremiali, (31 : 31-34,) plainly 
promises to renew, pardon, and sanctify his cho- 
sen people ; all of which is virtually included 
in the one grand idea of his being to them a 
God, and their being to him a people. And 
this was exactly the spiritual blessing promised 
in the covenant with Abraham. The fulfilment 
of this promise to the Church under the gospel 
is the fair and legitimate carrying out of the 
covenant made with Abraham, and confirms the 
doctrine that that covenant is still the blessed 
inheritance of the Christian Church. 

V. The next point to be established is this : — 
Me7)ibers in the Christian Church have now the 
same privilege ofinchtding their infant off spring 
in the covenant as members in the Jewish Church 
had^ unless^ hy some new arrangement^ God has 
forhidden it. Indeed, this follows as a neces- 
sary consequence of their having the same inter- 
est in the covenant. In the Jewish economy, 
parents who were themselves interested in the 
covenant of God were, by divine authority, per- 



136 

mitted, and even required^ to extend its benefits 
to tlieir inftmt offspring, by liaving tlie covenant 
seal placed upon them. This seal \vas the visi- 
ble badice or token of their relation to the 
Church ; and its admmistration was the initia- 
ting ordinance. Tliat the provisions of the cov- 
enant embraced the infant seed of believers in 
the Jewisli Church, I believe has never been 
disputed by Jew or Gentile. And accordingly, 
it was the uniform custom, in that Church, for 
parents to bring the children of their households 
into covenant with God, by sealing them with 
the same visible ordinance wliich themselves 
had received. And if members in the Christian 
Church have now the same interest in the spir- 
itual provisions of that covenant which members 
in tlie Jewisli Church had, then it follows irre- 
sisitibly,that they also liave the privilege, and 
it is their duty, to include their infant children 
in the covenant, by placing on them the same 
visible token or seal which they themselves have 
received ; unless^ by a special revelation from 
God, theyliave been forbidden. This privilege, 
be it remembered, was always conceded to pros- 
elytes from other nations who embraced the 
Jewish religion. Although they never shared 



ABRAiiAMic covp:nant. 137 

any inheritance in the land of Canaan^ yet they 
were allowed to be circumcised, as a public pro- 
fession of tlieir faitli, and as the means of be- 
coming interested in the covenant and Church 
of God. And wiien circumcised, and thus re- 
ceived into the Church, they had the same in- 
terest in the spiriMal jrroniise of the covenant 
as the Jevjs Jiad ; and consequently, tlie same 
privilege of including their children with them- 
selves ; — a privilege wliich they improved by 
applying to such children the ordinance and 
seal of circumcision. And in the same manner, 
since the spiritual provisions of that covenant 
are perpetuated in the Christian Church, and 
believers enjoy the same intei'cst in those pro- 
visions as did the believing Jews, while they 
themselves receive the visible token or seal of 
the covenant wdiich is appointed to be used un- 
der, tlie Cln*istian dispensation, it becomes both 
their privilege and duty to apply this same seal 
to their children, and thus initiate them into tlie 
visible Church, on the same principle as did the 
believing Jews. I say, this is tlie privilege and 
duty of believing parents in the Christian Church 
as truly as it was in the Jewish QliwrnXi^imless^ 
by some special prohibition, God has forbidden 



138 

it. If, on tlie introdaciion of the Christian dis- 
pensation, notliing was said on tliis sal)ject, or 
nothing advxM^se to the tlien existing practice, it 
woidd foUow, of course, that the Church was still 
authorized to inchide lier infant children as she 
had always done. In such a case, emphatically, 
" silence gives consent." 

VL I pass now to tlie next position, which 
is that, the privilege of helieving parents hring- 
ing their children with them into covenant rela- 
tion to God^ and hy the same ordinance lohich is 
appointed for themselves^ has never heen with- 
drawn, I scarcely need to argue this point. 
It plainly belongs to those who, while they ad- 
mit that believing parents might formerly bring 
their children into this relation, deny it to be 
their privilege now, to show the ahrogation of 
this privilege by divine authority. But this 
they have not done, and cannot do ; and for the 
best of all reasons, viz. it is not a fact, God 
has never abrogated it. The Bible contains not 
the remotest intim.ation of such a thing. 

But, is it said that, in abolishing the rite of 
circumcision, that privilege was withdrawn ? 
How was it thus withdrawn? The covenant 
was not withdrawn. I have proved that this 



Alil^AItAMIG COVENANT. 139 

continues in full force in tlie Cliristian Clmrch 
— tliat the promise is as good to the believer 
now as it was to Abraham, " I will be a God to 
tliee, and to thy seed after thee." This cove- 
nant promise, Abraham and all tlie Jewish 
Church, by God's special instruction, understood 
as applying to believers and their infant off- 
spring ; and accordingly, circumcision, as the 
initiating rite into the Church, and that which 
sealed to her members an interest in the prom- 
ise, was applied to the infants of church-mem- 
bers, as it was also to adult converts and their 
children from among the heathen. 

But under our dispensation, circumcision is 
abolished, and baptism is now the rite of initia- 
tion into the Church, and seals to her members 
an interest in the covenant promise. Yet, since 
the Church is still the same, and the covenant 
the same, how can a mere change of the initia- 
- tory rite and covenant seal from circumcision to 
baptism, affect the title of infants? Is not the 
promise still, ''I will be a God to thee, and to 
thy seed after thee " ? And if this jxcrticular 
form of the covenant made it the privilege and 
duty of believing parents to extend it to their 
children while circumcision was the seal and 



,.140 IXFAXT BAPTIS.V; 

rite of initiation, does not the same fi^rm of the 
covenant equally make it tlie pi'ivileire and <luty 
of believing parents now to extend it to their 
children, wlien the 4nitiatinu;^ rite and seal is 
l)aptisni? Alost certaiidy it does. A mere 
change of the initiating ordinance of the Chnrcli 
and seal of the covenant, from circumcision to 
baptism cannot vitiate the title of infants, while 
the Chnrcli remains the same, and the covenant 
the same. 

I leave it, therefore, as settled, — and I think 
it isfaiiiu^ and I hope satUfachirilii settled, that 
the privilege, formerly granted to believing pa- 
rents, of applying to their infant offspring the 
initiating ordinance of the Chnrch, and of thus 
sealing to them an interest in God's covenant 
promise, has never been withdrawn, and conse- 
quently still remains in full force. 

VII. The Jewish converts, in the first age of 
Christianity^ never imderstood the Christian 
Church to exclude the infant children of heliev- 
ers. And yet they were doubtless made to un- 
derstand tlie fact as it was. Biit,that they never 
understood that their cliildren wei'e to be ex- 
cluded, is certain from tlie fact that they never 
raised the least remonstrance on the subject. 



ABRAIIAMIG COVENANT. 141 

The Jews were proverbially tenacious of their 
Church privileges ; and perhaps more distin- 
guished for jealousy of their rigiits in this re- 
spect, than for any other characteristic. Now, 
is it to be believed, that sitch a people, after 
having, by special Divine appointment, enjoyed 
the riglit and privilege of bringing their infant 
children with them into the Cliurch and into 
covenant with God, by having the visible token 
placed upon them, — I ask. Is it to be believed 
that such a people, after having, by God's au- 
thority, enjoyed such a privilege for almost two 
thousand years, would, all of a sudden, and with- 
out any express command of God, silently rebln- 
quish this privilege, and consent to have tlieir 
infant ofispring thenceforth excluded from the 
pale of the Church, and from the benefit of 
God's covenant, notwithstanding that covenant 
still remains good to all wlio wear its seal ? 
Who can believe such a thing ? ]N"o ; instead 
of silently acquiescing in such a change, they 
would have raised a remonstrance loud enough 
to have been heard over the Cliristian world, 
and down to the end of time. Some of them 
made a mighty ado about Gentile converts not 



142 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

being circiimcised ; and a convention of apos- 
tles and distinguished brethren was called at 
Jerusalem to settle tlie question. IIow mucli 
more would thej have been oftended, and lun^e 
disturbed the peace of the Church, if an attempt 
had been made to exclude their own children 
from her pale, and from the covenant of God ! 
But in all the records of that age, there is not 
the slightest intimation that they ever uttered 
a word of complaint on this point. The only 
rational way to account for this fact is by ad- 
mitting tliat they never were taught that any 
such cliange was to take place. For if the apos- 
tles had been in the habit of excluding the in- 
fant seed of believers from the Church b}^ deny- 
ing to them the initiating ordinance and seal 
of the covenant, their prejudices would have 
been instantly roused to tumultuous excitement. 
The conclusion is then certain, that, from the 
practice of the apostles, the Jewish converts 
were put at perfect rest on this subject ; and 
were never led to suspect that the privilege they 
had so long enjoyed under the former dispensa- 
tion WMS now withdrawn. While. their children 
were admitted along with themselves, they could 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 143 

be b/onglit by degrees, as they were, quietly to 
relinquish the bloody circumcision, and to adopt 
baptism in its stead. 

VIII. The xtnbeliemng Jews never raised the 
objection against the Christian Churcli^ that they 
excluded their infant offspring, Th is they would 
certainly have done, if such had been the fact. 
The apostles maintained that tlie legal dispen- 
sation of the Church had passed away — that it 
ended with the offering up of the great atoning 
sacrifice — -that the Church was now under the 
special administration of Christ ; and conse- 
quently^ they claimed that the true Church and 
the covenant were now Avith the Christians. 
This claim their enemies, the unbelieving Jews, 
resisted by every means in their power. They 
persecuted the apostles and other Christians 
with murderous fury ; and charged them w^ith 
the attempt to abolish circumcision, and the 
ceremonies of the Levitical law ; but they never 
accused them of trying to shut out the infant 
offspring of believers from the Church and cov- 
enant of God. The plain reason was — the apos- 
tles tried to do no sucfh thing. On the contrary, 
by their habits in administering the initiatory 
ordinance in the households of believers, they 



144 

showed, in tlieir practice as well as by their 
words, that they considered the covenant prom- 
ise as being good to them and their chiklren. 
Hence their bitterest enemies among tlie Jews 
brought no compUiint against them on this point. 
They evidently had no thought of there being 
here any ground of complaint ; as they surely 
would have had, if the apostles had rejected, the 
children of believers from that ordinance by 
which persons were initiated into the Christian. 
Church, and by which their title to the covenant 
promise w^as believed to be sealed. 

IX. Baptism is now the oily ordinance of 
initiation into the Churchy and the only seal 
or token of the covenant y and hence it he- 
longs to all who are the jyroper subjects of church- 
member ship. It belongs, therefore, to believing 
parents and their infant seed. If it is true, as I 
have shown, that the title of infants to a place 
in the Church has never been repealed, but still 
continues ; and that they are still entitled to the 
benefits of the covenant, then it follows irresist- 
ibly that the infant seed of believers are now 
entitled to the ordinance^>f baptism. Further 
argument here is needless. They cannot be de- 
liied the privilege of membership in the Church 



ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 145 

and the seal of the covenant without being rob- 
bed of a i^recious and a sacred right which 
Heaven has granted them, and never recalled. 
They are just as much entitled to a covenant re- 
lation to God, and to wear the token and seal of 
the covenant, as their believing parents are. 
And since baptism is now the only way of ac- 
cess to the visible Church, and is the only visi- 
ble seal of the covenant, when believing parents 
refuse or neglect to offer their little ones to God 
in baptism, and thus neglect to bring them into 
covenant with him by placing upon them the 
covenant seal, they cruelly trespass on the rights 
of their children. They do them a grievous 
wrong, by shutting them out from the benefit 
of that gracious promise, " I will be a God to 
thee, and to thy seed after thee." Since the 
Church is the same, and the covenant the same, 
and the rights of infants the same, now as under 
the former dispensation, it is just as much the 
duty of parents in the Christian Church to have 
their children baptized, as it was of parents in 
the Jewish Church to have their children cir- 
cumcised. 

Does any one ask of what use it can be to 
an unconscious babe to have him baptized? 
a 10 



146 INFANT baptism; 

He might with the same propriety ask of what 
use it could have been to an unconscious babe 
to have him circumcised. The one is of pre- 
cisely the same use, in respect to spiritual things, 
as the other ; and the proper answ^er in both 
cases is. It brings him within the fold of God's 
visible Church, and gives him a title to the ben- 
efit of God's everlasting covenant — ''I will be 
thy God, and the God of thy seed." It is of the 
same use to the child as it is to the parent; and 
if one values baptism as a privilege to himself, 
let him remember, it as an equal privilege to 
his child. 

God declared of the uncircumcised man-child 
among his ancient people, "That soul shall be 
cut off from his people ; he hath broken my 
covenant." The import of it was. He should 
be rejected from the privileges of the Church, 
and all the benefits of the covenant. He should 
sustain no nearer relation to God than the child 
of an unconverted heathen. He might, indeed, 
by sovereign grace, be afterwards led to offer 
himself to God, and be circumcised ; but the 
parent could plead no covenant promise in his 
behalf. And if he should be left to perish, it 
would be no more than the parent might expect 



ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 147 

from liavincT neglected Ids duty, and slighted the 
covenant of God in regard to his seed. 

The same thing is true in respect to the un- 
bajDtized children of Christian parents. They 
are kept out of the Church and out of the cove- 
nant ; — as much so as the children of the wicked 
heathen. It is true that they may, perhaps, be af- 
terwards converted and received into the Church. 
But wdiatever faithfulness in other respects the 
parent may emph^y, having neglected his child's 
baptism, he can plead no covenant promise of 
the Lord to be ' the God of his seed ; ' and can- 
not, therefore, pray for his child with that assu- 
rance which he might, if he had the promise of 
God's covenant to encourage and support his 
faith. And if that child continues to live an 
alien from God to the end of his days, it is no 
more than the parent practically consented to 
by neglecting to offer him in baptism, and thus 
bring him within the scope of the covenant 
♦promise. For us to neglect the baptism of our 
children is to despise the covenant wdiich God 
has made with us in their behalf; precisely as 
if a member of the Jewish Church had neglect- 
ed to circumcise his son. The Lord is displeased 
with it ; and we need not be surprised if he 



148 

leaves tliem in alienation and unbelief to perish. 
But the pious parent who solemnly dedicates 
his children to God, and treats the covenant as 
if it were as vahiable to his seed as to himself; 
and thus honors it by causing its seal to be 
placed upon them, has a firm ground of confi- 
dence when he bows before God in behalf of 
his children. His faith can grasp the gracious 
promise, ^'I will be a God to thee, and to thy 
seed after thee ;" and he is just as certain of 
being heard and favorably answered,as when he 
pleads in faith for the fulfilment of any other 
divine promise. God's promises to believers are 
all conditioned upon our faith ; and the chief 
reason why our own prayers are not more uni- 
formly answered in favor of our children, is be- 
cause we exercise so little faith in the promise 
of God's covenant. But if we dedicate our chil- 
dren to God in baptism in honor of the covenant, 
we have thenceforth special encouragement to 
instruct them and pray for them. The promise 
of God in resjard to them is the life and streno^th 
of our faith. 

Let not the baptism of infants, then, be ridi- 
culed or despised. Let it not be lightly es- 
teemed. To despise it is to despise the cove- 



ABRAHAMio oovena:n:t. 149 

naiit of God. Nay, it is to despise God himself, 
as 'tlie God of our seed after iis.' Eatlier, let 
ns reverence it as appointed of the Lord ; and 
tliaiikfu]]}' improve it for the benefit of our chil- 
dren, and the support of our faith. 



CHAPTER Vl. 

INFANT BAPTISM HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 

An important question to be decided in the 
discussion of infant baptism, relates to the great 
Commission given by Christ to the ministers of 
his Church, '^ Go ye therefore and teach [Gr. 
disciple] all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." (Matt. 28 : 19.) What did the Saviour 
mean by this command to disciple and baptize 
all nations ? In what sense did he use the ex- 
pression, ''all nations"? Did he intend by it 
only adult persons, and sucli as were capable of 
repenting and believing the gospel? Or did he 
also mean to include their infant olispring? 

There can be no reasonable doubt that \\\q 
apostles correctly understood his meaning, what- 
ever it was. And it may essentially aid us in 
the investigation of this question to enquire, 
What would the ajwstles most naturaUi/ under- 



IirSTOfilOAL AKOrMENT. 151 

stand the Saviour to mean? To ascertain this 
point correctly, we need to consider the estab- 
lislied usages of the Church with which they 
had been familiar from their childhood. They 
were all Jews by birth and education. And 
being Jews, the rite of baptism could not liave 
been a new thing to them. It is well known 
that the Jews had long, if not always, practiced 
it, whenever they received into the Church a 
convert, or proselyte as he was called, from ^71- 
other nation. Besides being circumcised with 
his male children, such convert was haptized ^N\t\\ 
the children of his household^ male and female. 
This was intended as a rite of purification. The 
fact that baptism was so administered is indubi- 
tably established by several English and Latin 
writers of unquestionable credit, as Hammond, 
Lightfoot, Selden, Ainsworth, and others-; who 
cite abundance of passages from Jewish wri- 
tings, both in the Hebrew and Chaldee langua- 
ges, Vv'liich place the fact beyond a doubt. It 
has been disputed whether tlie children of natu- 
ral Jews vvcre baptized under the former dispen- 
sation. Pi'obably they were not. Yet all agree 
that the infant children of proselytes from other 
nations were baptized, both male and female. 



152 INFANT iJArnsM ; 

And it was common among the Jews to call such 
baptized children proseli/tes^ as well as their pa- 
rents. Such passages as the following abound 
in their writings : — 

"'J/] with a proselyte^ his sons and his dangh- 
ters he made proselytes^ that lohich is done hy the 
father redounds to their goodP 

Again, " A proselyte that is under age is hap- 
tized upon the hiowledge of the house of judg- 
ment^ [the synagogue, or church of the place,] 
and they hecorne to him a father. '^^ 

And again, " An Israelite that takes a little 
heathen infant^ and haptizes him for a proselyte^ 
hehold^ he is a proselyte P ^ 

Let it be remembered, then, that it had been 
a long established custom in the Jewish Church, 
in which the apostles were brought up, to bap- 
tize the infant children of other nations^ when 
their parents were converted and baptized ; and 
to call such baptized children ^;>;^<).?^'/y^6'.S'/ wliich 
means, in this connection, much the same tiling 
as disciples. The act of circumcising aiul bap- 
tizing them was called proselyting, or discipling 
them. Let these facts be borne in mind, and then 
we can easily understand that our Saviours com- 

* Bee Wall's '* Conference." 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 153 

mancl, '' Go, disciple all nations, baptizing 
them," &c., must be intended to include infants 
as well as adults. It is an obvious rule of inter- 
pretation, that Avords should be taken in that 
sense in which they were current at the time 
and place in which they were spoken. And, 
accustomed as the apostles had always been to 
seeing baptism administered to converts from 
the heathen nations, and to their infant children ; 
and used as they were to hearing it spoken of 
as making them "proselytes^ whether adults or in- 
fants ; now, w^hen they heard the Saviour using 
substantially the same form of expression, " Go, 
disciple, [or make disciples,] all nations, bap- 
tizing them" &c., they could hardly fail to un- 
derstand him as intending that they should bap- 
tize infants as well as adults. Such being the 
custom of the Jews, and such the use of lan- 
guage, it would seem obviously necessary, if he 
meant that in baptizing the nations they should 
n«9?^ baptize infants, as had usually been done, 
that he should have said so. But he said noth- 
ing on the subject; and of course left them to 
understand his language in the common accep- 
tation, which would require the baptism both of 
believing adults and their infant offspring. Sup- 



154 



INFANT 



pose the commission had been, '' Go ye, there- 
fore, and teach all nations, circumcising them," 
&c., would they not, in that case, liave under- 
stood that they were to circumcise the infants 
of believers, as well as their parents? Undoubt- 
edly they would, nnless they w^ere specifically 
instructed otherwise. But why ? Plainly, be- 
cause they knew that circumcision was nsually 
administered to infants. And so, too, thej; knew 
that baptism was usually administered to the in- 
fants of those who were baptized into the Church 
from other ncutions. And now, when they were 
commanded to go and " disciple all nations, 
baptizing them," w^ith no exception being ex- 
pressed in regard to infants, they must have un- 
derstood it as requiring them to baptize the in- 
fants of believing parents, as had always been 
done. And the Saviour evidently intended that 
they should understand it so. TTis pers(Mial 
treatment of little children in their presence had 
been such as coincided wuth this view. They 
had heard him say, " Sutler the little eJiildren to 
come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such 
is the kingdom of heaven : '■ — a form of ex- 
pression totally iiTeconcihible, by any fair in- 
terpretation, with the idea that thereafter tliey 



HISTORICAL AEGUMENT. 155 

were not to be allowed any nearer visible rela- 
tionship to him and his Church than the iinbap- 
tized heathen ; but perfectly natural, on the sup- 
position that they are still to be embraced with- 
in the pale of the visible Church. Indeed, tliere 
is notliing in all the recorded instructions of 
Christ which could lead the apostles to suspect 
that, in discipling and baptizing the nations, they 
were not to continue the practice of baptizing 
the infant seed of converted and baptized pa- 
rents, as had always been the custom in the 
Church to which they belonged. 

I see not how the force of this argument can 
be evaded, but by denying the custom in the 
; Jewish Church of baptizing Gentile proselytes, 
and the children of their households. And no 
person acquainted with the historic testimony on 
the subject will attempt to deny a fact so well 
attested. It cannot be disputed without reject- 
ing the testimony of Maimonides, the most em- 
inent of all the Jewish Rabbins since the Chris- 
tean era, as well as several of the early Talmudic 
writers, whose works, among the Jews, were re- 
garded as second in sacredness only to the in- 
spired canon. Indeed the fact is conceded on 
all hands, among the learned. And wlien the 



156 iNFAXT baptism; 

commission to disciple and baptize the nations is 
interpreted in the liglit of this fact, I see not how 
unprejudiced minds can avoid the conclusion 
that its natural import requires the baptism both 
of believing parents and their infant offspring, 
aocreeablv to the familiar and lono:-continued 
usage of the Church in the case of converted 
Gentiles. The only thing new in the adminis- 
tration of the ordinance, so far as appears from 
the instructions of Christ, was, that tliey were 
to baptize in the name of the Trinity, There is 
not the remotest intimation that the door was 
now to be shut against infants ; but every thing 
recorded warrants the belief that no cliange in 
this respect was intended, and they' were still to 
be admitted just as they had always been. If 
this view of the subject is correct, as 1 think 
must be evident, then we have, in this commis- 
sion of Christ to the apostles, a distinctly im- 
plied command to baptize the infant children of 
baptized believers. 

This representation is corroborated by /^ 
aposiolie ijvadice of haptizing households ; and,, 
in turn, it throws light on tluit practice. Sev- 
eral examples of household baptisu), as the rea- 
der knows,, are recorded in the New Testament; 



HISTORICAL AKGUMENT. 157 

particularly those of the Philippian jailor, Ste- 
pharuis, and Lydia. It is true that these exam- 
ples would not be sufficient to establish the au- 
thority of infant baptism, if there were nothing 
more ; because we do not certainly know whether 
tliere were or were not infants in those families. 
The sacred writers have not told us ; and the most 
that we can have on the subject is conjecture. 
It would, however, be a little singular if there were 
not infants in at least some one or inore of them. 
But I think w^e cannot prove that there were, or 
that there were not.^ And the only certain ev- 
idence afforded by these examples is, that it was 
a common practice of the apostles to baptize 
households. But when we consider tliat the 
apostles, situated as they were, must have under- 
stood the commission to baptize the nations as 
intended to include, not only the adults wdio be- 
lieved, but also their infant children, if now we 
find them going among the nations and fre- 
quently baptizing households,in perfect accord- 
ance witli tliat understanding, it affords a very 
strong confirmation of the foregoing argument, 

* Mr. Taylor has labored philologicalh^ and very ingenious- 
ly to prove that these households did contain infants; but I 
doubt whether his argument will satisfy the popular mind. 



158 IKFANT BAPTISM ; 

showing that the infant seed of baptized belie- 
vers are, by the authority of Christ, entitled to 
baptism. If the commission had been, " Go, 
disciple all nations, circitmcuing them," and then 
we had found the apostles in the habit of circum- 
cising households, who would have hesitated to 
regard it as an evidence of their circumcising 
infants as well as adults ? ^o one, certainly ; 
because, since infants had always been circum- 
cised, and the commission made no exception in 
the case of infants, to speak of circumcising a 
man and his household would be the natural 
way of stating the circumcision of infants along 
with their believing parents. And if infants 
were not allowed to be circumcised under this 
commission, to speak in such a general manner 
of circumcising households, with no qualifying 
^tord to restrict the sense, would seem highly 
improper, because very likely to mislead. In 
such a case, when households are mentioned, in- 
fants onii;ht to be especially exoejyted ; otherwise 
it would be lair to suppose them included. And 
just so, since it had always been tlie custom to 
haptize the households of men converted trom the 
idolatrous nations, including their ivf ant chil- 
dren oi both sexes, now when the commission 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 159 

is given, '' Go, disciple all nations, baptizing 
them," and no exception of infants is expressed ; 
and tlierenponwe find the apostles going among 
the lieathen nations preaching the gospel and 
baptizing households^- how can we do otherwise 
than regard this as a striking evidence of their 
baptizing infants ? To speak of their baptizing 
households wonld be the natural way^ in such 
circnmstances, of stating the baptism of infants 
along with their believing parents. And if in- 
fants wxre not allowed to be baptized, to speak 
in this general manner of baptizing households, 
with no word to restrict the sense, would seem 
to be exceedingly improper, because eminently 
adapted to mislead. But I cannot believe the 
sacred writers have stated facts in a way so di- 
rectly adapted to mislead their readers. I much 
prefer to think they have expressed themselves 
in such a way that the naturcd impression from 
their words will be the aoGurate one. That im- 
pression, considering all the circumstances, I 
hesitate not to say, is plainly this; that, in their 
habit of baptizing households, they did not ex- 
clude infants. 

Agreeably to this is the testimony of Justin 
Martyr y who lived and wrote about forty years 



160 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

after the apostles. In one of his apologies for 
the Christians, he speaks of ' severed j^^^^ons 
atnong tJiem^ sixty or seventy years old^ who were 
discijpled to Christ in infancy^ which must have 
occurred in the time of the apostles. By their 
being ' discipledhi infancy ^\\Qi means that they 
were baptized in infancy ; and thus entered the 
school of Christ as learners, or disciples, which 
means the same thing. They w^ere probably 
among the subjects of household baptism, as it 
was practiced by the apostles. 

1 will now call the reader's attention to an- 
other important fact, sustaining the view already 
taken ; viz. Infant haptism %oas generally prac- 
ticed in the earlier ages succeeding the apostles. 
In proof of tliis fact I refer, 

First, to the testimony of Ireneus^ Bishop of 
Lyons, who wrote about seventy years after the 
apostles. In comtnon watli many of the early 
Christian fathers, he fell into the mistake of 
regarding baptism as regeneration, and of 
supposing it to be essential to salvation. Of 
Cln*ist he says, ^'^Ile came to save all persons Inj 
himself * all^ I say^ who are regenerated hy him 
to God — ivfants^ and little ones^ and children^ 
and young inen^ and old menP That by ^' re- 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 161 

generated^^ lie means l)aptized^ or born of water, 
as tlie word was commonly used in his day, is 
evident from what lie says in another place. 
'' When Christ gave the coiminandment ^regen- 
erating unto God^ he said^ ' Go and teach all 
oiations^ BAPTIZING tliem.^^^ &c. This testimony 
is very explicit in designating the various stages 
of life, so that one cannot mistake it. He says, 
" INFANTS, and LITTLE ONES, ciud children^ and 
young rnen^ and old inenT All these classes 
w^ere, in his time, regarded as proper subjects 
of baptism. Now, it is worthy to be remem- 
bered that this same Ireneus was born before the 
death of the apostle John, and was an intimate 
acquaintance and disciple of the venerable Pol- 
ycarp^ who was John's own disciple. And from 
his intimacy with Polycarp, he had every op- 
portunity to know, and doubtless did know, 
what was the practice^ of the apostles on this 
subject. 

Agaiu, Tertullian^ the first Latin author in the 
Church, vvdio flourished about one hundred years 
after the apostles, is a valuable witness on this 
question. He, too, liad adopted the prevailing 
error of his time, viz. that baptism was an ordi- 
nance in which sin was washed away ; and he 

11 



162 LVFANT h^i'TISM ; 

supposed that sins committed after baptism were 
jpeculiarly dangi^rous^ and could not be forgiven. 
He therefore advised that the baptism of infants 
should be delayed until they should grow up 
and become confirmed in habits of virtue, unless, 
from some cause, there was imminent danger of 
their dying. Now, the fact that Tertullian ad- 
vised the delay of baptism in the case of infants 
ordinarily, shows that it was then a customary 
practice in the Church to baptize them ; else 
there could have been no occasion for his «:ivino^ 
such advice. And again, the fact that he per- 
mitted it in cases where their life appeared to 
be in danger shows that he advised the delay 
only from considerations of expediency^ and not 
because he considered it itnlawful to baptize 
them. It is a striking fact that, anxious as Ter- 
tullian was to dissuade the Church from the 
practice of baptizing infants, he never once in- 
timates that it is an unauthorized innovation^ 
and therefore itnlccwful. This, if it had been 
true, would have been the stronij-est as well as 
the most obvious and natural argument which 
he could have urged against it. And tlie fact 
that he does not use it — that he says nothing 
ahout tlie unlawfulness of the custom, but rests 



HieTOKlCAL AUGl MEJS'l. 163 

his argument entirely on the ground of expedi- 
ency, shows that he considers tlie authority and 
lawfulness of infknt baptism as not to be ques- 
tioned. Tertullian is sometimes referred to as a 
witness against the fact of infant baptism in the 
early Christian Church. But, in truth, his ob- 
jection demonstrates that the Church was then 
in the practice of it. He admits its existence 
by advising its delay ; and he admits its law^ful- 
ness and authority by the nature of his objec- 
tion to it. 

Again, Origen^ a presbyter and lecturer of 
Alexandria, and a cotemporary with Tertullian, 
has various passages which illustrate and con- 
firm the antiquity of infant baptism. He la- 
bored to prove the doctrine of original sin, or 
infant depravity, from the general practice of 
infant haptisin. " What^^^ says he, " is the rea- 
son why the haptisrn of the Churchy conferred 
for the remission of sins^ is also administered 
to infants? svnce^ were there nothing in infants 
that required forgive7iess and mercy ^ the grace 
ofhaptism might seem superfluous?^ Again he 
argues, '^ Infants are hajytized for the remission 
of si7is. Of what sins f or when have they 
sinned ? or how^ in the case of little children^ 



X64 INFANT baptism: 

can any reason of the laver [or baptism] hold 
good^ except according to the sense ahove men' 
tioned? No one is free from pollution^ tltough 
his Ife upon earth loere hnt the length of a day. 
And l)eca.use^ hy the sacrament of hap)tism, our 
pollutions are VKished away^ therefore it is that 
infants are haptized. For excepjt a man he horn 
of water and of the Spirit.^ he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of heaven^ Yet again lie says, 
'' The Church hath received the tradition from 
the apostles, that baptism ought to be admin- 
ISTERED TO INFANTS. For they to whom the di- 
vine mysteries vjere coinmitted knew that there 
were^ in allj those naturcdj deflements ichich must 
he washed away hy loater and the Spirit!''^ 

Now, whatever may be thoiiglit of Origen's 
tiie(>:ogy, or the doctrine of original sin as he held 
it, this much must be certain, that infant bap- 
tism was at that time a common practice* in the 
Cliurch. This writer founds an argument in 
favor of his doctrine on the baptism of infants ; 
and attempts to slu>\v that tlieir baptism would 
be an unmeaning ceremony, if it were not true 
that they needed to be cleansed from sin. But 
such an argument could have had no force at 
all, or have ever occurred to that author's mind, 



HISTOKIOAL ARGUMENT. 165 

if it had nat been a well-known fact that the 
Church had been in the constant practice of 
baptizing infants. 

Let it be remembered that this was only about 
one hundred years after the apostles. We are 
often told that infant baptism is a Popish cor- 
ruption, and many are made to believe it ; but 
here is this eminent Christian writer, discoursing 
in this manner on the subject, within about one 
himdred years of the apostles^ time^ and fowr hun- 
dred years before Popery had existence j and 
affirming in so many words, ''The Church hath 

RECEIVED THE TRADITION FROM THE APOSTLES, THAT 
BAPTISM OUGHT TO BE ADMINISTERED TO INFxlNTS." 

Origen was born within eighty-five years of the 
apostolic age, of Christian parents, (his father 
having been a martyr,) and was himself, as he 
says, baptized in infancy. In the days of his 
parents, tlierefore, infant baptism was believed 
and practiced as an institution of apostolic au- 
thority. 

Once more. Gyprian,, Bishop of Carthage, 
wlio wrote about one hundred and fifty j^ears 
after the apostles, gives an account of an eccle- 
siastical council which w^as held in his own 
church, and composed of sixty-six bishops, or 



16G i^:fant baptism ; 

pastors. The occasion of the council was this : 
A certain country bishop, by tlie name of Fidus, 
entertained serious doubts wliether infants should 
not be baptized at the age of eight days, and no 
earlier ; in order that the Christian ordinance 
might more perfectly correspond with circum- 
cision which it replaced. The subject was likely 
to make some difficulty ; and, to settle the ques- 
tion, Cyprian called this council at Carthage. 
Sixty-six bishops assembled, and the question 
came before them, " Ought not hajjtism to he 
administered to infants on the eighth day^ ac- 
cording to the law of Gircumcision?^^ The 
question was discussed at length, and finally de- 
cided unanimously, that the day was not mate- 
rial — that they were proper subjects of baptism 
from the day of their birth. This decision was 
communicated to the country bishop in a letter 
signed by Cyprian himself, by order and in be- 
half of the council. Here is a remarkable his- 
torical fact. In that large body of Christian 
pastors, assembled from different and distant 
parts of the Churcli, to discuss such a subject, 
the question was not even raised \\\\<di\\ev infants 
should be baptized at all, but only whether it 
should be on tlie eighth: day. Now, is it to be 



IIISTOKICAL ARGUMENT. 167 

believed that, in one hundred and fifty years 
after the apostles, so great an innovation as the 
baptism of infants, if it be called an innovation, 
could have been introduced, and have become 
so widely disseminated and perfectly established, 
that not a voice should have been raised against 
it in all that body of Cliristian ministers, many 
of whom might in all probability have been per- 
sonally acquainted wdth the immediate succes- 
sors of the apostles, and through them have 
known what the apostolic practice was ? It is 
utterly incredible. If the baptism of infants had 
not been known to be authorized by apostolic 
usage, before the question of Fidus could have 
been decided, the council must have had to set- 
tle the prior question, whether infants should 1)6 
haptized at all. And the fact that this question 
was not even raised by any one, and that the 
council unanimously decided that the ])recise 
time of their baptism was not material, not only 
demonstrates that the baptism of infants was, at 
that early day, the general and undisputed cus- 
tom of the Church, but also affords convincing 
evidence that it had come down from the apos- 
tles. 
But if the reader thinks otherwise, then let 



168 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

me ask. When did this custom commence? Who 
has ever read an account of its origin? Al- 
tlioiigli the history of the Cliurch immediately 
after the apostles abounds in records of innova- 
tions, heresies, and schisms ; and every little de- 
viation from established doctrine or usage was 
made the subject of violent and long-continued 
controversy, yet not one word appears in regard 
to the introduction of infant haptism.^ and not a 
sylable of controversy was had on the subject."^ 
Think of this. Infant baptism an unauthorized 
innovation ! a mere human invention ! and yet, 
within one hundred and fifty years after the 
apostles, the whole Christian Church in the prac- 
tice of it! and, what is more incredible still, 
even in that most contentious period, not one 
word of controversy ever heard on the subject 
of its divine authority ! Let them believe it 
w^ho can. But we must all believe it, or else 
believe that the Church received the practice, 
as Origen affirms, from the apostles themselves, 
and therefore had no occasion to dispute about it. 
We know also that, in the fourth century of 

* No controversy was had before Tertulliau's time ; and 
then, none in regard to its authority ^ but only in regard to 
its expediency. 



HlfeTOKICAL AKOrMEx^T. 169 

the Christian era, infant baptism was universally 
practiced, on the ground of the Abrahaniic cov- 
enant ; and was regarded as sanctioned by apos- 
tolic authority. To this fact there is any amount 
of testimony by eminent men of that age. Au- 
gustine is very explicit. " Whicli^^ says he, 
'^ the whole hody of the Church holds in the case 
of little infants who are baptized.^ who certainly 
cannot helieve with their heart unto salvation y 
and yet no Christian will say that they are bap- 
tized in vainJ^' Again he says, " The custoin 
of the Church in baptizing infants must not he 
disregarded^ nor accounted useless / and it must 
by all means be believed to be an order from the 
apostlesP He had a long controversy with Pe- 
lagius on the doctrine of infant depravity, which 
doctrine Pelagius denied. Augustine urged that 
the baptism of infants implied and proved their 
depravity, since they were baptized, as was be- 
lived, for the remission of sim And he charges 
it upon Pelagius that, in denying the depravity 
of infants, he virtually denies their right to bap- 
tism, and accounts the practice of it a useless 
ceremony. Pelagius repels the charge with 
indignation ; and says, " Men calumniate me^ 
by charging m^e with a denial of ir^fant bapt/ism. 
H 



170 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANY I^IPIOUS HERETIC OB 
SECTARY WHO DENIED INFANT BAPTISM." He laboPS 

to prove that his sentiments on the subject of 
original sin do not involve any thing inconsistent 
with the divinely authorized practice of infant 
baptism. Now, the fact that both parties thus 
appeal to infant baptism as a test of their doctri- 
nal sentiments, shows how firmly and universally 
the practice was rooted in the Church. Pela- 
gius was strongly tempted, by his position in the 
controversy, to deny the validity of infant bap- 
.tism ; — a thing which he certainly would have 
done, if there had been anything in all the dis- 
cussions and controversies of the time to show 
that it had not the sanction of the apostles, but 
had been introduced since their day. He must 
have been thoroughly informed of the doctrine 
and practice of the Church in different parts of 
the world ; for he had traveled extensively — in 
Britain, Gaul, Italy, Africa, Egypt, and Pales- 
tine. And yet, instead of questioning the au- 
thority of this practice, he makes the affirmation 
above : '' / have never heard of any impious 
heretic or sectary who denied infant haptismP 
This was in the fourth century, and within less 
than three hundred years of the apostles. 



HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 171 

Much other testimony to the same purpose 
might be offered, but I need not detain the 
reader with it. The fact is established, as well 
as any fact in history can be, that all through 
that period, and for nearly a thousand years 
after the promulgation of Christianity by the 
apostles, infant baptism was universally prac- 
ticed in the Church ; and not a single sect or 
body of Christians in all the world could then 
be found who denied its validity. I say no sect^ 
or l)ody of Christians denied its validity. Ter- 
tullian, indeed, and perhaps some other individ- 
uals, objected to it on the ground before stated, 
viz. that sins committed after baptism w^ere 
deemed peculiarly dangerous ; and hence, as a 
matter of expediency^ he would have it delayed. 
But Tertullian urged his objection against un- 
married adults as strongly as against infants, and 
for the same reason. Neither himself, nor any 
who adopted his views, ever called in question 
the validity of infant baptism. And the fact that 
he thus objected to it proves the prevalence of 
the custom in his time, which was only about 
one hundred years after the apostles. I will 
only add. 

If infant baptism is unauthoraaed ia the 01irifl» 



172 INFAKT baptism; 

tian Church, it must have begun to be practiced 
in tlie very first, or at latest, in the second gen- 
eration succeeding the apostles — a time \vlien 
there were ample means for knowing with en- 
tire certainty wdiat the apostolic practice was. 
Why, then, I ask again, have we no account of 
its commencement? Why no record, or frag- 
ment of record, of that stern and powerful re- 
sistance which it must have encountered wdien 
first introduced ? There must have been many 
faithful and conscientious men in the Church at 
that time — as their frequent martyrdoms prove 
there w^ere — many who would have earnestly 
spoken and written against it. On every other 
subject, the slightest novelty of doctrine, or in- 
novation of practice, was strongly disputed, not 
only in private discussions and ecclesiastical 
councils, but in books and epistles, which have 
come down to us, in whole or in part, so as abun- 
dantly to acquaint us with their nature and ori- 
gin. But in regard to the introduction of infant 
baptism, there is nothing of the kind. Instead 
of it, almost immediately after the apostles are 
in their graves, we find the custom generally 
practiced in the Church, with no more dispute 
about it, as to its divine authority, than about the 



llIc^TOiaCAL ARGUMENT. 173 

baptism of adult converts. ISTow, while this fact 
is unaccountably strange and unnatural, on the 
assumption tiiat infant baptism was brought 
into the Church without autliority, it is perfectly 
natural and consistent, if we admit that this 
practice had tlie sanction of Christ and his apos- 
tles ; and, taken along with the preceding ar- 
guments, affords, as I think, unanswerable proof 
that the Saviour and his apostles did give to it 
their sanction. 

I have now done with the discussion of infant 
baptism, so far as relates to its vindication, or 
defence^, as a divinely instituted practice. I 
have endeavored to disclose to tiie reader what 
I believe to be the mind of God on this subject ; 
and I leave him to give such weight to the ar- 
guments, and to make such use of them, as his 
own judgment and conscience shall approve. 



CHAPTER VII. 

INFANT BAPTISM DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 

I ENDEAVORED in tliG last chapter, to show that, 
in the great Commission, the Saviour gives a 
distinctly implied command to baptize infants 
as well as adults. This was done by showing 
that it had been a long-established custom in the 
Jewish Church, whenever men of other nations 
were converted, to baptize them and their house- 
holds, including their infant children. It was 
shown that the apostles, being Jews, must 
have been familiar with this custom ; and that 
when the Saviour commanded them to 'go, dis- 
ciple and baptize all nations,' stating no excep- 
tion in the case of infants, they must have un- 
derstood, agreeably to the established usage of 
the Church, that they were to baptize, not only 
believing adults, but also their households, in- 
cluding the infant members ; and that the 
Saviour must have intended them to understand 
him so. 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAlIsED. 175 

This view was shown to be sustained by the 
corresponding practice of the apostles in bap- 
tizing households, without their deeming it im- 
portant to tell us whether those households were 
composed entirely of adult believers, or partly 
of infants and children. 

Consistently with this, it was shown that, du- 
ring several of the first ages succeeding the apos- 
tles, the Church was in the constant practice of 
baptizing the infant children of baptized be- 
lievers ; while no one disputed the authority of 
the f)ractice, and no one attempted to show 
w^hen, or by whom, it was introduced, except to 
say that it was derived from the apostles. All 
this was believed to form a complete argument 
on the subject ; and, taken along with the argu- 
ment from the Abrahamic covenant, as exhib- 
ited in the previous chapter, it places the divine 
authority of infant baptism, as I conceive, be- 
yond a reasonable doubt. 

But even after the argument is settled, and 
shown to be conclusive in favor of the practice, 
there are some questions on the subject fre- 
quently coming up in the minds of sincere 
Christians, and greatly perplexing them ; — 
questions which need to be solved in order 



176 iNFAJTT baptism; 

that the benefits of this ordinance, in its appli- 
cation to infontSj may be properly realized by 
the Church without embarrassment. I design, 
therefore, in the present chapter, to discuss and 
answer some of tlie most perplexing of these 
questions; and I do it the more willingly, be- 
cause several of them are often urged upon us 
by those who deny the propriety of infant bap- 
tism. 

1. The question has been asked by some who 
doubt not the law^fulness of infant church-mem' 
bership, "ii it true that ha^tism. initiates the 
children of helievers into the Churchy and into 
covenant loith God? Are t\\Qj not w^ithin the 
Church, and embraced in the arms of tlie cov- 
enant, hefore their baptism ? Are they not 
brought into these relations by their very birth ? '^ 
I think not. " But," it is asked ao:ain, '' was nol 
the Jew^ish child a member of the Church be- 
fore his circumcision ? AVas he not born sucli ? " 
In my opinion, he was not. I knov/ it is said of 
the uncircumcised man-child, " That soul shall 
be CUT OFF from his people ; lie hath broken my 
covenant." And this form of expression, in the 
translation, has led some to think that children 
of the Jews were born into the Church, under 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED, 177 

the privileges of the covenant. And by anal- 
ogy, they suppose that the children of chnrch- 
members under the gospel are j at their birth, em- 
braced within the arms of the covenant, and 
members of the visible Church. But I believe 
this i> a mistake. The expression, " shall be cut 
OFF from his people," does not, in the original, 
necessarily imply that he had previously been 
in covenant as a member of the Church, and 
was now to be excommunicated ; but, that he 
should be destroyed, or severed from his kin- 
dred and countrymen as an offender, for having 
virtually refused, and therefore despised God's 
covenant. The blame of this oftence was not, 
of course, imputed to the child, but to his pa- 
rents, until he grew up and refused or neglected 
to offer Idmself to God in the ordinance of cir- 
cumcision. 

And when it is said, " He hath buokek my 
covenant,'" it does not mean that he had pre- 
viously been in covenant, and had now violated 
an engagement which that covenant bound him 
to fulfil. The idea of the original would be 
more correctly expressed by saying, '^ He hath 
frustrated my covenant." That is, he has baf- 
fled its gracious design^ so far as relates to him- 
H* 12 



178 mFANT baptism; 

self, by refusing to accept and ratify it. Con- 
sequently, sucli an one was to l3e denied the 
privileges of cliurcli-fellowship, and all the ben- 
efits of the covenant promise. 

But it may be asked again. Does not God say 
to Abram hefore his cii'cumcision^ " As for 
me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou 
shalt be a father of many nations ? " He does ; 
and in respect to a numerous posterity, and the 
possession of Canaan, he had indeed already, on 
a former occasion, given Abram his pledge. 
But the grand covenant 2^^"07nise — ihat which is 
still valid and constitutes the basis of the Church 
— that which is, by way of eminence, called 
" THE COVENANT," had uot been given before, and 
is expressed in these words, " I will establish 
my covenant between me and thee, and thy 
seed after thee, in their generations, to be a God 
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." The 
command to circumcise was given in this same 
interview, and as a part of the same transaction. 
This ordinance was one of the essential constit- 
uents of the covenant — its visible " ioke?}^'^ and, 
as Paul tells us, its "seal,-'^ Without it the cov- 
enant w^as not valid, or of any/orce. It becomes 
of force when its terms are accepted and its seal 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 179 

is set. Previously to this, it is ratlier to be 
viewed as a covenant ^rap(9^6^6? — not a covenant 
ratified. And when he says, '' I will establish 
my covenant between me and thee," the mean- 
ing evidently is, ' I do this with the proviso, that 
you consent to, and accept, the terms of my cov- 
enant ; wdiich are, on your part, " Walk before 
me and be thou perfect " — [maintain a life of 
faith and obedience] ; together with the promise 
on my part, '^ I w^ill be a God unto thee, and to 
thy seed after thee." But, as a token or v/itness 
of this engagement, and as the seal of its author- 
ity, I appoint the ordinance of circumcision. 
When you consent to the terms and afiix the 
seal, the covenant takes efi*ect. You are then 
in covenant v/ith God, and in that visible Church 
wdiich this transaction is intended to establish.' 
Thus, I suppose, the great covenant with Abra- 
ham did not become valid to him — was not a 
covenant in force^ until he w^as circumcised. 
The same was true in respect to his posterity, 
and also in respect to proselytes from other na- 
tions, who became Abraham's seed by faith, and 
their children with them. The covenant, in its 
relation to them, required the same ratification 
as in the case of Abraham. They, indeed, were 



180 INFANT baptism; 

entitled^ by God's special grant therein ex- 
pressed, to have tlie covenant ratified and con- 
firmed to them, as truly so as Al3raham liimself 
was. But it was not in fact so ratified and con- 
firmed to them, until the seal was set and the 
token given. They differed from the children 
of unbelievers in this respect, viz. they had a 
right, by divine grant, to he circumcised, and 
thus to have the covenant made good to them ; 
whereas others had not. But to have a right to 
possess a privilege is a different thing from ac- 
tually possessing it. The seed of Abraham had 
a right to possess the privilege of church-mem- 
bership in covenant with God ; but they did not 
in fact possess this privilege until they were 
circumcised. Circumcision sealed and confirmed 
the covenant to them, and thus initiated them 
into the visible Church. Before his circum- 
cision, I suppose the Jewish child held a rela- 
tion to the Churcli and covenant similar to that 
which Abraham held after this interview with 
God, and before he was circumcised. 

Analogous to this, I regard the unbaptized 
children of church-members as holding a rela- 
tion to the Churcli and covenant similar to that 
of an unbaptized adult convert, now become the 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 181 

friend of God, as iVbraliam was. That is to say, 
they have a divinelv slanted riHit to be ad- 
mitted into covenant and chorch-niembership 
through the ordinance of baptism, whereas the 
children of unbelievers have not this right. Butj 
as the adult convert is not embraced in this cov- 
enant, or in the visible Church, previously to 
his baptism, so neither are the children of 
church-members. In both cases, baptism is the 
initiating ordinance — as circumcision was to 
the children of the Jews, and to the proselyte 
from the Gentiles. 

2. The question is often asked, '' What is the 
relation which haptized ivfants hea^r to the 
Church? Or /Is there anything jy^c'^diar in re- 
gard to their church-connection ? '' I answer^ 
As I view the matter, their relation to the 
Church is somewhat peculiar. I consider them 
as really memhers oi the Church general; but 
not especially members of any one distinct 
Tjvanch of it rather than another. By baptism, 
they are introduced into the visible family of 
God, and into covenant with him. They, are 
baptized into the name or family of the Holy 
Trinity ; and, by covenant betv*^een God and 
their parents acting in their behalf, they are 



133 INFANT BAPTISM ; 

thus constituted members of the Lord's visible 
household. The terms of the covenant are, in 
substance, '^ Ye sliall be my people, and I will 
be your God." By baptism, the parent consents 
to and ratifies this covenant, in behalf of him- 
self and his children. When he submits to the 
ordinance personally, he promises to serve God 
himself; and when he offers up his children in 
baptism, he engages that they too shall serve the 
Lord ; or at least, that he will do all in his power 
to influence them to it. The parent, so to speak, 
transfers his child from his own to the family and 
authority of Christ by indentures ; and the child 
is, to all intents and purposes, hound to God. The 
parent thus comes under peculiar responsibilities 
in regard to the spiritual training of the child, 
and the child is placed under peculiar obliga- 
tions to love and obey the Lord. He now be- 
longs to that class of persons whom God has 
promised to regard with special favor ; and un- 
less he willingly forfeits his claim, by abandon- 
ing his duty and despising his obligations, he is 
graciously entitled to all the benefits of the cov- 
enant by which the Lord binds himself to be a 
Father and a God to his people. He is, in- 
deed, visibly a member of the general Church of 



PIFFICULTIES EXPLAESTEIX 183 

Christ: and his baptism is a permanent seal at- 
testing his interest in the everlasting covenant. 
But it may perhaps be objected, ' If baptized 
infants are members of the Church general, and 
not especially of any particular branch of it 
more than another, then that particular branch 
of the Church within which they are baptized 
and educated, owes them no special duties in 
regard to their spiritual training, any more than 
another, or than all other branches of the Church.' 
ITo, this does not follow. The branch of the 
Church within which they are baptized and ed- 
ucated does owe them special duties ; not, how- 
ever, on account of any nearer ecclesiastical re- 
lations, but on account of closer proximity and 
nearer social relations ; — just as we owe special 
duties to the souls of all classes in our immedi- 
ate vicinity, and to those bound to us by special 
social ties, which are not owed to them by Chris- 
tians in France or India. And if it be insisted 
on, that baptism brings its subject into special 
connection with some particular branch of the 
Church, then I would ask, To what particular 
branch of the Church is that infant united whose 
fether is converted by the labors of a traveling 
missionary in the wilds of Oregon, where no 



181 INTANT liAPTTSM ; 

local Chnrcii organization exists ; and who, be- 
ing baptized by the missionary, immediately 
offers in baptism his infant son ? In this case, 
both the father and the child are, by baptism, 
introduced into the visible Church general, but 
not especially into any one particular branch of 
it. The same is true any where else. Baptism 
introduces one into the Clmrch general, while 
the act oi personally assenting to its particular 
covenant, according to the prescribed form, unites 
one especially with a local branch of the Cliurch. 
All baptized infants are members of the Church 
general ; but not until tliey are old enough to 
giye, and actually do giye, their consent person- 
ally to the covenant of a particular Church, do 
they become members especially of such partic- 
ular Church. 

3. It is often asked, ^ If laptizecl infants are 
mernhers of the Clmrch, why are they not admit- 
ted to the sacrament of the Lord^s Supper ?^ I 
answ^er, God has not authorized it. Why he has 
not, Ave are not told. One reason may probably 
be. They are incapable of profiting by this ordi- 
nance. It does not follow, because baptized in- 
fants are members of the Church, that they are 
therefore entitled to all the privileges of the 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED, 185 

Church. They are also members of the civil 
coinmunity; but this does not entitle them to 
civil privileges wliich they are incapable of en- 
joying — the privilege, for instance, of voting, 
or of being chosen to office. The peculiar na- 
ture of the Lord's Supper is sucli that, in order 
to be beneiited by it, he who receives it must, 
by fill til, '' discern the Lord's body." And since 
infants are incapable of this, it can of course be 
no privilege to them to partici])ate in \\\q ordi- 
nance. The same also may be said of them 
after attaining to adult years, if they do not be- 
come renewed by the Spirit of God. While un- 
renewed they exercise no true faith ; and are, 
therefore, incapable of being benefited by this 
sacrament ; and hence, until they giv^e evidence 
of being spiritually renewed, they are not to be 
received to the Lord's Supper. 

4. If^ after haptisvx^ they give evidence of 'he- 
coining real Christicms^ hut have not yet them- 
selves asstuned the responsihility of the covenant 
in a fvMic profession of their faith^ have they 
tlien a right to the sacramentcd, Stqipe/r f I an- 
swer. My own opinion is that they have not ; 
because, what they nov/ do, they do as intelli- 
gent moral agents. This must be assumed, if 



183 i:^rANT baptism 



we suppose tliem to exercise faith. Ancl,as in- 
telligent moral agents, they act on their ow7i re- 
sponsibility, and not on the responsibility of 
their parents. And if we regard them as acting 
on their own responsibility, we must require 
them, of their own free will, to assume the re- 
sponsibilities of the covenant. The covenant 
into which their parents entered on their behalf 
is not of such a nature as to exclude the neces- 
sity of an expression of their own will in rela- 
tion to it, whenever they are capable of doing 
it understandingly. And it is not reasonable 
that they should, in the exercise of their own 
moral agency, and on their own responsibility, 
partake of the children's bread, until they have 
voluntarily acknowledged their connection with 
the family. Unless we admit that the reception 
of the Lord's Supper is itself a declaration, and 
a sufficient declaration of faith, they cannot rea- 
sonably be admitted to this ordinance until they 
have, in a public and more explicit manner, 
avowed their faith and their allegiance to Christ. 
5. Suppose^ as is sometimes the case, the lap- 
tized ■person, after adult ijears, does not enter into 
sp>ecicd connection with any particular Iranch of 
the Church in ap>rofession of faith ; hut^ on the 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 187 

contrary^ casts away his cavenant privileges^ and 
hecovies a notorious sinner / why is he not made 
a subject of discipline ? and why should he not 
he formally cast out of the Churchy if he cannot 
he reclaimed ? I answer. Because, in this case, 
the thing is impossible. Such a person, it is 
true, has broken covenant with God, but not 
with men. His baptism brought him into no 
covenant directly with men ; nor did it, as has 
been shown, unite him with any particular 
branch of the Church rather than another ; al- 
though it did unite him with the Church gen- 
eral. And God, by the constitution of the 
Church, has not put it in the power of men to 
exercise church discipline for a breach of cove- 
nant which is not made specifically with men 
composing some local church organization. To 
pass sentence on one who belongs to the Church 
general, but not particularly to any one branch 
of it, would require that the whole Church of 
Christ oil earth should be called together, be- 
cause no one part alone has jurisdiction over 
him. But this is plainly impossible, and of 
course a formal excommunication is impossible. 
And besides, all the essential purposes of excom- 
munication are accomplished by the voluntary 



188 INFANT BAPTISM 



al3stinence of such baptized person from any 
oommnnion witli the Church. 

6. Does not the practice of infant laptisni tend 
to corrupt religion, hy irnpairlng the spirituality 
of the Church? I know tliis is often affirmed 
by those wlio oppose tlie practice ; but I am not 
aware tliat any proof was ever given tliat sucli 
is the fact. How should it impair tlie sp.iritual- 
ity of the Church and corrupt reh'gion? Are 
parents \q^^ likelj to be spiritual and devoted 
Christians, when all the love tliej bear to their 
children is added to every otiier motive to bind 
them to a hoi v life ? Having brought their chil- 
dren into covenant with God, and thus obtained 
for them the divine promise, will they not be 
the more zealous, on this account, to maintain a 
high standard of piety? since the fulfilment of 
that promise depends very much on the influ- 
ence which the parent exerts in forming the 
habits of the child. Yes, when Cln-istian pa- 
rents honor the Abrahamic covenant by dedica- 
ting their children to God in baptism, all their 
parental affection is enlisted, along with their 
o\-n covenant vows, to make them faithful, in 
order that the conditions of the covenant may 
be met, and the fulfilment of the promise be se- 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 189 

cnred to their children. This, certainly, does 
not tend to in]pair, but to increase, the spiritu- 
ality of believing jyavents. 

Again, are such cJiildrenj when they come to 
maturity and assume the responsibilities of the 
covenant themselves, and enter into communion 
with a particular Church, any the less likely to 
prove spiritual and devoted Christians for hav- 
ing enjoyed the privileges of the covenant, with 
the pious training which it is adapted to secure? 
Nay, such a training, secnring the fulfilment of 
that gracious promise, '' I will be thy God," 
must be adapted to make the most thoroughly 
principled, steadfast, and spiritual Christians in 
the Church. If, then, the practice of infant 
baptism tends neither to make the jparents nor 
the children less spiritual and devoted Chris- 
tians, but decidedly the reverse, how can it op- 
erate to ' impair the spirituality of the Church 
and corrupt religion ? ' 

Again, there are no facts to justify the asser- 
tion that this practice tends to religious corrup- 
tion. I am aware that the papal apostacy is 
often ascribed to this cause ; but without the shad- 
ow of proof to sustain it. It was State ijatron- 
age^ and not intantbaptism,that chiefly corrupted' 



190 - INFANT BAPTISM ; 

the Cliurcli of Rome. Where on earth is the 
Church of Christ to he found in a more spir- 
itual state than among the Waldenses, and in 
some of the Scottish communions ; especially the 
Free Church of Scotland ; where infant baptism, 
on the ground of the Abrahamic covenant, is 
held as a fundamental principle of Church or- 
der? How is it in our own country, where the 
Church enjoys jpvotection^ but not ])atronage^ 
from the State? Are the denominations that 
practice infant baptism, as a general thing, less 
spiritual and active and evangelical than those 
who do not? Do they less frequently enjoy the 
out-pourings of the Holy Spirit? Do they ex- 
hibit less zeal andenergj^ in scattering the Scrip- 
tures over the world, and in disseminating the 
gospel in all the forms of Christian benevolence ? 
Have they less the spirit of prayer, and of 
watchfulness against the inroads of sin? Are 
they less thorough in resisting vice and main- 
taining discipline in their Churches ? No, there 
are no more spiritual and evangelical denomi- 
nations of Christians in the whole Church than 
are several of those which maintain the practice 
of dedicating their infant seed to God in the 
sacred ordinance of baptism. 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAmED. 191 

Again, the fact that God has appointed the 
laptism of infants^ which I think has been 
abundantly demonstrated in the preceding chap- 
ters, is conclusive evidence against its having 
any tendency to deteriorate the Church. When 
he organized the Church in the family of Abra- 
ham, he opened its door for the reception of 
infants, and required them to receive the ordi« 
nance of initiation, for the express purpose of 
increasing her stability, and adding to the ele- 
ments of her spiritual prosperity. And so well 
pleased was he with its practical workings, that, 
after an experiment of almost two thousand 
years, when'he came to change the external or- 
der of the Church, and abolish such ordinances 
as had ceased to be useful, he left the principle 
of infant membership untouched — merely chang- 
ing the initiating rite from circumcision to bap- 
tism. The experiment of two thousand years 
had not disappointed him in regard to the utility 
of extending the privileges of the covenant to 
the infant seed of believers. The measure had 
fully answered its design, and therefore was not 
abrogated, but confirmed, on the introduction of 
the Christian economy. Accordingly, baptism 
was conferred on the children ol' believers, as 



192 INFANT BAPTISM 



circumcision had formerly l)een. And there is 
certainly no excess of modesty in our afiectinsr 
to discover dangerous tendencies where the wis- 
dom of God has detected none ; but on the cbn- 
trarj^, has found important advantages. Let pious 
I)arents dedicate their children to God, in the 
baptismal covenant, and earnestly endeavor to 
fulfil their vows by training them up " in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord," and there 
need be no fears entertained of its practical ten- 
dency in respect to the purity and spirituality of 
the Church. So far from being a source of dan- 
ger, it is one of the most powerful defences 
against doctrinal corruption and practical apos- 
taey. 

7. But does there not^ after all^ seem to he a 
mam f est irnprojpriety in administeri7ig so sacred 
an ordinance to an unconscious hdbe ? In reply 
I would say, 

(1.) However the thing may seem to us, it 
does not become us to call in question a divinely 
appointed institution. AVhen we have once set- 
tled the point, that the infant seed of believers 
arc, by divine authority, made appropriate sub- 
jects of baptism, the same as their parents, this 
should be the end of all scruple or doubt in regard 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 193 

to it. We are not at liberty to arraign the pro- 
priety of what God appoints. Our duty is to 
believe and obey. 

(2.) But why should there " seem to be an 
impropriety " in administering haptism to " an 
unconscious babe," any more than in adminis- 
tering cirGumcision to such an one ? An infant 
is as incapable of appreciating the import and 
design of circumcision as of baptism. And yet 
God did not judge the incapacity of an infant 
to be any obstacle to his circumcision; and 
neither is it to his baptism. The one ordinance 
is just as sacred as the other ; and infants are 
made subjects of the one by the same authority 
as they were of the other. 

Baptism is indeed a most sacred ordinance, 
because it is given by Ileaven's authority, and 
confers important privileges. But these privi- 
leges are as valuable to infants as to adults. 
Suppose you lived in a country governed by an 
absolute monarch, as Russia or China ; and the 
sovereign graciously condescends to enter into a 
contract or covenant with you, in which he con- 
veys to you the title to a valuable estate, with 
distinguished honors, on eminently favorable 
terms. And as the ratifying seal and visible 

I 13 



194: INFANT BAPTISM ; 

token of your Interest in this covenant, he gives 
you a beautiful gem, so set as to be vforn on 
your forehead. AVherever you go, and as long 
as you live, that gem upon your brow is the to- 
ken and seal of your title to the high privileges 
and possessions granted in the covenant promise 
of your sovereign. But in this arrangement, the 
sovereign promises to you the same advantages 
in behalf of each of your children, and on the 
same favorable terms as are granted to yourself. 
And to ratify the engagement, he also offers you 
a similar gem to be placed on each of their fore- 
heads, to be worn as a perpetual witness of their 
interest in this promise of their sovereign. 
Your placing that gem on the forehead of your 
child shall be understood as ratifying and seal- 
ing the contract or covenant between the sover- 
eign and yourself on behalf of the child. In 
this contract you engage that the child, when 
he comes to act for himself, shall fulfil certain 
conditions — the same as are required of your- 
self; and at the same time, you promise that 
you will do all you can to secure his compliance 
with them. If he does comply with the condi- 
tions, he has a title to the fulfihnent of his 
sovereign's promise, of which that gem on h.s 



DTFFK'ULTIP.S P^XPLAINKl). 195 

foreliead is a witness. If he does not, lie then 
forfeits the high advantages procured for him 
through the agency of his parent. 

I^ow, would it not be a privilege to your 
child, even though an infant, to have you close 
the contract in his behalf, and seal it, by placing 
the precious gem on his forehead ? What pa- 
rent would hesitate in such a case, or question 
the propriety of the thing, merely because the 
child is incapable of nnderstanding and acting 
for himself? What affectionate parent would 
demur, and delay, and excuse himself by say- 
ing, "I do not believe in infants wearing jew- 
elry ; " or " I cannot see it to be m?/ duty to bind 
so precious a gem on the forehead of my uncon- 
scious babe"? Would it not rather be enough, 
in his mind, that the sovereign offers it as a 
privilege ? and would he not thankfully improve 
the privilege, not only for himself, but also in 
behalf of all his little ones ? Or would any 
kind parent bind the badge to his own forehead, 
but refuse it to his child, on the ground that 
possihly the sovereign might confer the same 
favors on the child without his wearing the of- 
fered gem ? Who would refuse to secure for his 
child the pledge of the contract, in the uncer- 



196 infa:n't jiAi'-jisM; 

tain hope of liis ultimately realizing an un- 
pledged possibility ? Surely, no one that lovee* 
his child. 

Well, Christian parent, that sovereign is God^ 
and that contract is the AhrahamiG covenant^ 
and that precious gem is haptisvi. Bind it on 
your children as a seal of the covenant, attest- 
ing their interest in the sacred promise of Je- 
hovah — " I will be a God to thee, and to thy 
seed after thee ; " and thus ratify in their be- 
half, the most advantageous contract ever en- 
tered into by fallen man. 

ITo, there is not even a seeming impropriety 
in the application of this ordinance to intants, 
when its import and bearings are rightly under- 
stood. And I marvel that any intelligent Chris- 
tian can fail to see its propriety. I marvel that 
Christian parents can be blind to a divinely 
given privilege, so richly fraught with Heaven's 
peculiar blessings to the children whom they 
love. And how can pious parents, who are 
properly instructed on this subject, justify them- 
selves in neglecting so important ^duty? — a 
duty which they oweio their little ones by the 
gracious appointment of God ; while, by neg- 
lecting it, they expose those precious objects of 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 197 

their afiection to that fearful denouncement of 
God against such as receive not the covenant 
seal, '' That soul shall be cut off from his peo- 
ple ; he hath broken my covenant." 

I entreat Christian parents who have little 
children unbaptized, to consider this subject 
anew. Let not former prejudices stand in your 
way. If, like some, you are surrounded with 
those who make light of " baby sprinkling," as 
they are pleased to term it, or who look with 
mistaken horror on what they suppose to be a 
profanation of a holy ordinance, fasten yourself 
on God^s unrevoked covenant^ and let not your 
faith be driven from its moorings by any waves 
of prejudice, ridicule, or unbelief. If you are 
the father, God holds you responsible in this 
matter^ and will by no means excuse you in 
despising his covenant in respect to your chil- 
dren. I counsel you to avail yourself of the 
earliest opportunity to consecrate your unbap- 
tized children to God, and ratify the covenant 
in their behalf by causing its seal to be placed 
upon them. Then do all you can to redeem the 
baptismal vow, by training them up in the way 
'of God's commands. If you are the mother, 
similar duties and responsibilities rest upon you. 



198 

nless your power to obey is baffled by the su- 
perior authority of a husband. If it is thus baf- 
fled, that husband may expect a solemn reckon- 
ing at the last. But in that case, you can only 
pray, and persuade, and maintain the duty in 
principle^ and humbly wait for God to open 
your way. Yet, let me charge you not to be de- 
ceived by auy sophistry, however plausible it 
may appear ; and never give up y^nr claim to 
the riglit of enjoying the full benefits of God's 
covenant, as well in behalf ()f your children as 
of yourself Christian parents can never on 
earth adecpiately appreciate these covenant mer- 
cies. Eternity alone will wholly reveal their 
worth. But though we cannot here fully esti- 
mate their value, we can comprehend the fact 
that, if Jehovah be our God, and the God of our 
children, we have in this, both for us and them, 
the entire sum of all good. 

Let us then do our duty to our children — 
bring tliem into, covenant with God along with 
ou.rselves ; cause them to wear the same sacred 
badge — the token of his promise; and train 
them up to love and obey the Lord Jehovah as 
their God. And then, when we sit down with 
them in the palace of heaven, enjoying together 



DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 199 

the smile of tlie Saviour ; when we walk with 
them the streets of the IsTew Jerusalem, chant- 
ing the praises of redeeming grace ; when we 
kneel among those children at the foot of the 
eternal Throne, and cast our crowns before the 
Majesty of Heaven, crying "Holy, holy, holy is 
the Lord God Almighty, which liveth forever 
and ever ; " and there learn how much our mu- 
tual joys MB due to that precious covenant of 
God ; then, if not before, we shall rightly un- 
derstand and gratefully acknowledge the un- 
speakable PEIVILEGE OF INFANT BAPTISM. 



THE £KD. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 



I • 



